Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.His estuary airport has always been a mad fantasy that nobody else supports. It's in the wrong place, there is no local population to work there or any infrastructure and would cause economic collapse to the west of London. In terms of cost it would make HS2 look like a village bypass.
So where is the right place?Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.
Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.Presumably the Court of Appeal blocking the third runway at Heathrow today makes this perhaps less likely to happen?
Given Boris' view of Heathrow expansion it gives him a neat out...Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.
Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...So where is the right place?
Presumably the Court of Appeal blocking the third runway at Heathrow today makes this perhaps less likely to happen?
Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.
Given Boris' view of Heathrow expansion it gives him a neat out...
Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.
Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...
Heathrow Airport will appeal to the Supreme Court, according to The Telegraph and Evening Standard.Additionally the court has announced that the government will *not* appeal the decision, so I guess the third runway is well and truly dead.
So where is the right place?
Heathrow is in absolutely the wrong place and should have been closed at least 30 years ago. Glad that the Court of Appeal saw sense.
So where is the right place?
I would have thought somewhere like Stansted, although not perfect, would arguably be far more suitable if much better transport connections there were built. Close enough to London to only be a short train-ride away on a dedicated rail link, but far enough away that flights taking off and landing aren't destroying air quality right in the middle of where a few million people live.
And put it in zone 6 for pay as you go and ticketing purposes.As the issue is down to the emissions of the country it could be argued that Heathrow would only be allowed to expand of it could demonstrate that it was going to take steps to reduce emissions to offset the emissions created from the extra flights.
The obvious thing to do would be to improve access to the airport by rail.
The funding for either link will now likely be wholly from pubic bodies.
I agree that Heathrow isn't the best spot for a huge airport but in the interests of pedantry, London isn't the city in Europe with the highest population.Somewhere where most flights don't have to go over the city with the largest population in Europe would be a good start...
As the issue is down to the emissions of the country it could be argued that Heathrow would only be allowed to expand of it could demonstrate that it was going to take steps to reduce emissions to offset the emissions created from the extra flights.
The obvious thing to do would be to improve access to the airport by rail.
I agree, but there is also a possible argument that the new runway will stop the usual stacking of incoming flights in the evening and morning peak. That would reduce emissions quite a lot (as long as it wasn't used for new services too).
Stacking is much more prevalent at certain times of day (the flights are uniformly spread out) and has actually reduced with the changes on the ground with T5 and T2 (still in progress) as the traffic jams on the ground were / are part of the issues. Plenty more they could do to improve the taxiing traffic flow issues and delays but low BCR.I agree, but there is also a possible argument that the new runway will stop the usual stacking of incoming flights in the evening and morning peak. That would reduce emissions quite a lot (as long as it wasn't used for new services too).
Gatwick (+30%) and Dublin* (+90%) are in far better position to deliver extra flights with just runways and no extra terminal additions or changes and thus at far lower cost compared to Heathrow.Nice argument, but the whole purpose of the third runway is (was?) to operate more flights. A lot more!
Gatwick (+30%) and Dublin* (+90%) are in far better position to deliver extra flights with just runways and no extra terminal additions or changes and thus at far lower cost compared to Heathrow.
*and the ability to preclear US immigration
- Desperately need to do something to even remove 25% of Gatwick traffic such as to get a major relief to rail passengers in Surrey and Sussex
Agree entirely.
Don’t rule out a post Brexit deal to enable US immigration at a U.K. airport. Birmingham and / or Manchester would make things very interesting!
Talk about blindness in the sight of the facts! Doubtless from someone who lives nowhere near the damn place. Every expansion at Heathrow is promised to be the last and every time they come back asking for more. It already blights too many lives in London. Enough is enough!As people have rightly said:
- Too late to move the airport now
- Desperately need to do something to even remove 25% of Gatwick traffic such as to get a major relief to rail passengers in Surrey and Sussex
- Stick a third runway (would be nice to see a fourth...) down at Heathrow to get rid of stacking and to improve connectivity through the hub and spoke model
- Much closer to HS2, GWML (etc) than Gatwick or Stansted etc
- Build the bloody thing...