Is this really a motoring discussion topic?
Yes, I'd say it is.
If we are being told to 'go green' all the time, and being pushed in various directions (first to diesel, then electric ...), and yet a third runway (and more pollution) for Heathrow is being proposed at the same time, then there is a serious 'motoring discussion' point being made.
Not all will agree with that, I'm sure. But I personally have no issues with it being put in this forum section.
In addition, Heathrow is a few hundred metres from the M25. A third runway will (probably) lead to even more congestion, etc. in that area. Does that make it a 'motoring discussion' subject ?
|
|
I thought it was motoring related due to the emissions thread in my post!
|
|
|
Is this really a motoring discussion topic?
In addition, Heathrow is a few hundred metres from the M25. A third runway will (probably) lead to even more congestion, etc. in that area. Does that make it a 'motoring discussion' subject ?
Yes it is, as we are told that to comply with emissions, the M4 and M25 wil need to be covered and speed limits reduced so that overall emissions will be static.
Vested interests are affecting how i travel in that area, and a 3rd runway built across the M25 will affect traffic on the motorway system in that area.
I would say that IT IS related enough to motoring to be included on this section of the forum, but Solomon (sorry Avant) will decide..Other Mods are available...
|
|
"Other Mods are available..."
You may think so, but it's been a long time since we saw any of them.
|
|
Hypocrisy has always been governments middle name. This time it is emissions. Usual tactic, pick a subject, rubbish it and it's suposed effects, then tax the s*** out of it. Ergo fuel tax. Agree air traffic does create lots of pollution but it isn't going away and will only increase, therefore tax the air traffic itself and not everyone else to subsidise it.
As for Heathrow, I think enough is enough. We have Gatwick, Stansted and Luton at present which 'qualify' as London airports. Surely it makes more sense to increase their activity, with possible expansion, than to try and cram everything into Heathrow. All these airports have established rail and road links to London anyway. Maybe even Boris Island would be worth another look. There are parts of the Thames estuary where an airport would virtually go unnoticed and transport links would be close by. However what makes sense to us 'civilians' is not considered whenever government and vested interest is involved, sense does not come into the equation and they will do what is best for them and not the hoi polloi.
Cheers Concrete
|
|
Sharing the traffic out doesn't really work when you need a big hub. Over a thiird of Heathrow passengers are transferring to another flight, the comparable figure for Gatwick is 5% and I think Stansted and Luton will be lower still.
That's really the case for Boris Island, as Heathrow is already poor for reliable access, and will only get more difficult and expensive to extend.
Heathrow would be much diminished by a successful transfer of the hub activity elsehere and various people have a lot invested in it - maybe that accounts for the difficulty Boris has had getting his idea to fly.
From an emissions point of view, Boris Island is the best option by far - the net pollution doesn't change, but the prevailing winds will blow it away from London towards the Continong:)
Edited by Manatee on 13/07/2015 at 17:21
|
|
They should built 2 more runways at Heathrow as quickly as possible. The country needs the trade which they will bring. Politicians have been leaving the decisions for far too long and it seems that Labour want to build at Heathrow, so if it is decided there should be a political agreement.
Manatee is right, a lot of passengers travel on to other places in Europe and it wouldn't be good to have to collect your luggage at Gatwick and then go to Stansted for the next flight.
The Boris Island sounds good, but 100,000 people in West London work at Heathrow, how would they get to work in the Thames estruary? Also there are many businesses on the M4 coridor who rely on Heathrow to carry their goods.
Cameron and Corbyn/Burnham must get their heads together and get the job done ASAP or Britain will get left behind.
As for the people living where the runways are to be built, well they can be moved to new houses that would be built and a few quid in their pockets should sweeten the pill.
|
|
Oh and yes you are all right, the emissions stuff is just an excuse to get more money out of us. All this talk of diesel cars making your face look older, what rubbish, it's the alcohol and fags that make you look haggard: you ought to look at me!
|
|
As a failed Civil Engineer, I based purely on a gut feeling, fully support "Boris Island" , iffen that WW2 munitions vessel still aground on the sandbar can be sorted.
stuff heathrow's furthur expansion
|
|
I thought that was a good idea too, and privately funded too according to Boris. But there's obviously a lot of business interests out their rubbishing the idea, ignoring the fact that plenty of other supercities have built their airport runways into the sea to negate some of the environemental impact.
I live in Farnborough where we have the increasingly popular private business airport, with a vast runway that can land anything. There's air quality monitors dotted all over, all of which barely register any badness, except one, the one next to the M3....
There's a simple example to be had, but I'm not sure if anyone's ever measured. What would be the environmental impact of a family of four driving in a Mondeo diesel estate to and from Benidorm, opposed to flying there, on a fully loaded charter flight. Interesting to see that comparison
Edited by Sulphur Man on 13/07/2015 at 21:47
|
As a failed Civil Engineer, I based purely on a gut feeling, fully support "Boris Island" , iffen that WW2 munitions vessel still aground on the sandbar can be sorted.
stuff heathrow's furthur expansion
I am against Boris Island as the area is an important feeding and breeding ground for a large number of birds. If you are tempted to think 'stuff the birds', consider that the numbers are huge, and these days there are less and less habitats available to them. They used to breed and feed on beaches, but many if not most are now used by humans for recreation.
I'm also not convinced that having aircraft flying low in an area with large numbers of birds is advisable. And wiping them out is not acceptable.
|
As a failed Civil Engineer, I based purely on a gut feeling, fully support "Boris Island" , iffen that WW2 munitions vessel still aground on the sandbar can be sorted.
stuff heathrow's furthur expansion
I am against Boris Island as the area is an important feeding and breeding ground for a large number of birds.
If you view the footprint of a Hong-Kong size airport on the west of the Isle of Grain from 10,000ft it takes up hardly any space at all of the Thames estuary. Plenty of room elswhere for birds, newts, snails etc.
A new airport here is a no-brainer. Let Heathrow evolve into what it always should have been - a pleasant suburb of London. The UK needs this.
|
|
The disruption is not limited to the runways. The building work will require huge disturbances to the area, and disturbance will continue once built. Aircraft do not land vertically, and the disruption will be spread over a far larger area, when aircraft land and take off, both from noise, and the danger of bird strikes. Presumably they will introduce measures to scare away birds, to reduce the danger of air strikes.The RSPB are strongly against it:
www.rspb.org.uk/whatwedo/campaigningfornature/case...3
|
|
|
|
|
