 |
By (user no longer on site) OP 15 weeks ago
|
Heathrow Airport expansion. Does it work economically?
Surely all this growth,growth,growth, must stop somewhere?
Bill Bryson in the Road to little dribbling puts up a great argument against it. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Heathrow Airport expansion. Does it work economically?
Surely all this growth,growth,growth, must stop somewhere?
Bill Bryson in the Road to little dribbling puts up a great argument against it."
Well for a start it's in the wrong place - way too close to a major urban conurbation. These days, airports are built 20 to 60k away from cities - usually on a coastal strip. But building a new airport is probably beyond the UK on many grounds (cost, environmental, nimbyism). So expanding Heathrow is probably the least worse option. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Heathrow Airport expansion. Does it work economically?
Surely all this growth,growth,growth, must stop somewhere?
Bill Bryson in the Road to little dribbling puts up a great argument against it.
Well for a start it's in the wrong place - way too close to a major urban conurbation. These days, airports are built 20 to 60k away from cities - usually on a coastal strip. But building a new airport is probably beyond the UK on many grounds (cost, environmental, nimbyism). So expanding Heathrow is probably the least worse option."
Expanding Gatwick ? Still not exactly amazing for the people in the area. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Heathrow Airport expansion. Does it work economically?
Surely all this growth,growth,growth, must stop somewhere?
Bill Bryson in the Road to little dribbling puts up a great argument against it.
Well for a start it's in the wrong place - way too close to a major urban conurbation. These days, airports are built 20 to 60k away from cities - usually on a coastal strip. But building a new airport is probably beyond the UK on many grounds (cost, environmental, nimbyism). So expanding Heathrow is probably the least worse option."
The other location problem is that it is in London. I get the reason why London airports are expanding but it is also self fulfilling - Londons growth is driven because of _vastly_ superior transport infrastructure compared to anywhere else in the country and so it needs even better infrastructure to deal with that growth.
This argument will always be made and so the rest of the country will never get the infrastructure it needs to start their growth paths. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
In a perfect world it would be fine, but we are not in that world. No one actually knows especially the government what the impact will be and beyond. More than likely it will more negative than positive. Air travel is so slow and out of date.
The future will probably be hi-tech sub surface amphibious commercial super subs, water powered, in which case airport expansion is a waste of time. Sonic technology will keep the wildlife from being damaged.
Air traffic, road/train delays and union disputes and housing are the problems for Heathrow.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"In a perfect world it would be fine, but we are not in that world. No one actually knows especially the government what the impact will be and beyond. More than likely it will more negative than positive. Air travel is so slow and out of date.
The future will probably be hi-tech sub surface amphibious commercial super subs, water powered, in which case airport expansion is a waste of time. Sonic technology will keep the wildlife from being damaged.
Air traffic, road/train delays and union disputes and housing are the problems for Heathrow.
"
To me this is short sited as it will then need a 4th runway in time.
Also, have you ever flown out of Heathrow and back to Gatwick so annoying.
To me the UK needs a new singe large airport so Heathrow can me made in to housing.
But where to build to me it needs to be north of London as it should have 4 runways with room for at least 2 more and as mentioned not much housing round it.
To do Heathrow they are looking at sum 700 homes to be flattered. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site) 14 weeks ago
|
Environmentally, would it be better on the "Boris Island" proposal?
Currently I think Heathrow has so much other ground transport services I think it's congested on the approach to Heathrow.
The planes also circling while waiting isn't good for the environment.
I reckon Boris Island wouldn't mean demolishing hundreds of houses, and also spread the burdon on ground transport links.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Boris island" was a much better proposal in almost all aspects. The main thing against it is that we'd have to do something about the SS Richard Montgomery, which is lying in the Thames estuary containing hundreds of tons of unstable explosives. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Environmentally, would it be better on the "Boris Island" proposal?
think Heathrow has so much other ground transport services I think it's congested on the approach to Heathrow.
The planes also circling while waiting isn't good for the environment.
I reckon Boris Island wouldn't mean demolishing hundreds of houses, and also spread the burdon on ground transport links.
"
But the new Heathrow is going to have to demolish hundreds homes anyway, and I belive move the M25 in to a tunnel with the runway over it, to me a new airport between the M4 and M40 would be more acceptable to more people.
But The UK dose need a big international hub airport. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Environmentally, would it be better on the "Boris Island" proposal?
think Heathrow has so much other ground transport services I think it's congested on the approach to Heathrow.
The planes also circling while waiting isn't good for the environment.
I reckon Boris Island wouldn't mean demolishing hundreds of houses, and also spread the burdon on ground transport links.
But the new Heathrow is going to have to demolish hundreds homes anyway, and I belive move the M25 in to a tunnel with the runway over it, to me a new airport between the M4 and M40 would be more acceptable to more people.
But The UK dose need a big international hub airport."
I agree but it'll take ten years+ which is indicative of the problems with this country |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
