Heathrow third runway gets go-ahead

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

The third runway will operate at half its capacity when it opens in 2020, raising the total number of flights from 480,000 to 600,000, rather than the 702,000 intended.

It will add an estimated 400 flights a day at the west London site and increasing annual passenger numbers through the airport from 66 million to around 82 million.

The village of Sipson and one primary school will be demolished to make way for the runway, with a further 20 schools exposed to increased noise pollution. A total of around 700 homes will be demolished.

This is a decade away and more importantly a possible change of government away.

The Conservatives have pledged to block a third runway if they get into power and replace the project with a high-speed rail line. The Tories plan to rush through a new aviation policy that would stop the construction of runways at Heathrow and Stansted.

Your thoughts?????????

 

[Hazey]

Hope it doesn't happen, will raise Carbon emmisions even more making Heathrow the biggest contributor of Carbon in the UK. As Emma Thompson said on the news earlier the government go on about us turning off a lightbulb and turning off our tvs then they go and increase the number of plane flights by 200,000, hypocrits. Also feel for the people being asked to move.

 

[M@CC@ 16]

It will more than make its money back in tax alone.

So can build new schools and homes with this.

Whereas a railway line would never make anywhere near as much money and would take forever to repay its building costs.

 

[BrettieAngell]

The third runway will operate at half its capacity when it opens in 2020, raising the total number of flights from 480,000 to 600,000, rather than the 702,000 intended.

It will add an estimated 400 flights a day at the west London site and increasing annual passenger numbers through the airport from 66 million to around 82 million.

The village of Sipson and one primary school will be demolished to make way for the runway, with a further 20 schools exposed to increased noise pollution. A total of around 700 homes will be demolished.

This is a decade away and more importantly a possible change of government away.

The Conservatives have pledged to block a third runway if they get into power and replace the project with a high-speed rail line. The Tories plan to rush through a new aviation policy that would stop the construction of runways at Heathrow and Stansted.

Your thoughts?????????

A high-speed rail line that goes around the world? Cool!

 

[Aberdeen Shrimper]

It will more than make its money back in tax alone.

So can build new schools and homes with this.

Whereas a railway line would never make anywhere near as much money and would take forever to repay its building costs.

What about the Green Issues?

 

[M@CC@ 16]

I'm sure its not the only new runway in the world being built. The building of it aswell as other large projects will be the only way to aviod going into a depression.

 

[loz]

I can't see this happening. Hoon's 'green slots' have no basis in reality, there's going to be vast opposition in Parliament and in public (John McConnell getting suspended from the Commons today as a starter) and it relies on Labour winning the next election, if not the next 2!

 

[davewebbsbrain]

What about the Green Issues?

I reckon they could use Green tarmac for the runway!

 

[Einstein]

I'm sorry, but who gives a flying diddly do for the environment on this one.

Heathrow is crying out for expansion. The people around Heathrow knew there was an airport so if you didn't want to live near an airport then they shouldn't have moved there or moved long ago. Too much sentimental cr*p on this one.

However, I still think it's unbelievable that somewhere like Luton could not have been massively extended/upgraded. There's already the existing foundations in place after all. With the radius it has, it could have easily become the biggest airport in the UK.

I understand there's EU laws/guidelines that stop flights taking off/landing in the middle of the night so it's not like people will be having sleepless nights because of it. However, that is of course the next possible way of expansion....

 

[Lord Football]

I'm sorry, but who gives a flying diddly do for the environment on this one.

Tell that you grandchildren when Southend is called Southend Under Sea and drinking water is a premium.


We all pay "green taxes", but it seems it is just lip service to appease the environmentalists out there. What exactly has this government done to protect the environment? Diddly squat other than raid our wallets. I've no issue with green taxes so long as the money goes towards green initiatives. I don't see any and this expansion just goes to prove that. If the government had any desire to be environmentally friendly, they wouldn't be doing this.

And exactly how many flights do we need? A considerable number of planes take off half full and airlines are always going bust, or having to merge.

The extra runway will prove to be a white elephant.

Oh, and fantastic mace wielding antics in the Commons from my old speaking partner John McDonnell.

 

[Mad Cyril]

Hope it doesn't happen, will raise Carbon emmisions even more making Heathrow the biggest contributor of Carbon in the UK. As Emma Thompson said on the news earlier the government go on about us turning off a lightbulb and turning off our tvs then they go and increase the number of plane flights by 200,000, hypocrits. Also feel for the people being asked to move.

I assume Emma Thompson walks/cycles/rows/sails to all those film premiers and award ceremonies.

 

[chadded]

The Government harp on about turning your light bulbs off because that will make a difference if enough people do it. Everything counts. Maybe the Government are taking into account the fact that Heathrow would create more emissions, and so want the population to help cut it down in different ways. Not saying it's an equal, but surely you can see the point.

As for a high speed rail link that goes around the world- maybe not, buit if the high speed rail network was big enough, then it would reduce the amount of domestic flights out of Heathrow. Bear in mind one quick google search reveals BA alone operates 400 domestic/short haul flights per day alone. A further search suggests that 66500 flights could be reduced by the rail link. Granted, The 3rd runways would 'create' 120,000 flights, but how many of those would also be domestic?

I'm open either way. I've never actually flown from Heathrow, but I've flown about 16 times in the last 2 and a half years, and am realistic enough to know that air travel is a necessity. However, there comes a time when you have to say that we are killing this planet, and something needs to be done.

FWIW, As I watch Dave a lot, I can't remember if it was a recent Top Gear or not, but two things. A BMW M3, (or M5, can't remember) is actually better for the environment than a Toyota Prius, but secondly, James May did a bit on a Hydrogen powered Honda. Currently only available in California, I think it was blindingly obvious that Hydrogen power has to be the fuel of the future if we are to think about doing something to save this planet.

 

[loz]

As for a high speed rail link that goes around the world- maybe not, buit if the high speed rail network was big enough, then it would reduce the amount of domestic flights out of Heathrow. Bear in mind one quick google search reveals BA alone operates 400 domestic/short haul flights per day alone. A further search suggests that 66500 flights could be reduced by the rail link. Granted, The 3rd runways would 'create' 120,000 flights, but how many of those would also be domestic?

very true. the most frequently served destination out of Heathrow is.... Manchester. It's true that about half of the passengers on those planes are getting onto connecting flights (i cough to having done that before on my way to the States), but it could be easily avoided by an express rail-link, and no reason why the plane companies couldn't sell tickets for that as part of your fare.

 

[BrettieAngell]

FWIW, As I watch Dave a lot, I can't remember if it was a recent Top Gear or not, but two things. A BMW M3, (or M5, can't remember) is actually better for the environment than a Toyota Prius, but secondly, James May did a bit on a Hydrogen powered Honda. Currently only available in California, I think it was blindingly obvious that Hydrogen power has to be the fuel of the future if we are to think about doing something to save this planet.

Totally agree with that, electric cars are a waste of time IMO and car manufacturers should be investing in Hydrogen.

 

[chadded]

London to Manchester is 201 miles by road. If you take into account the fact you have to check in 40 minutes before a flight, and the fact that airports are miles away from the city centre compared to a train station, then a rail link would probably be quicker.

Theoretically though, it's probably easier to build a new runway. A new runway takes up X amount of space in one area. The physical logistics of a train line would be far harder...