On Wed, 08 May 2013 08:38:45 -0500
Recliner wrote:
Roland Perry wrote:
Given that many people choose to change planes somewhere, the best places
quickly tun into "hubs", irrespective of whether they are Heathrow,
Frankfurt, Paris etc.

Indeed, and while Heathrow is the busiest of the three, it has to squeeze
the traffic on to just two runways, while the latter two have four each. It
needs four, too.

And when those 4 fill up then what? 6? 8? Where do you stop? When half of
Berkshire is paved over and millions of peoples lives are blighted by aircraft
noise and pollution just so you can save a few hours getting to some non
essential destination - which ironically is probably for rest and relaxation
purposes?

--
Spud

You seem to feel that farm land has no value. Not many will agree with that,
least of all the peope who live near Stansted and who have made clear their
intense opposition to any expansion.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area. I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in the
Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

Robin9 wrote:
Neil Williams;136900 Wrote:
Robin9 wrote:
-
You haven't explained why you believe "the most sensible option" is
"expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to
a
smaller operation." Why and how would that be better than the present
situation?-

Because it's in the middle of farmland, which means it can easily be
expanded substantially (4 or even 6 runways?) and is connected directly
to
the City of London by a railway line with a station under the terminal
which could be upgraded further, unlike LHR which is connected to
Paddington which isn't really where anyone wants to go.

IOW, London could gain a properly designed super-Schiphol rather than
the hotch potch that an upgraded LHR will be.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to
reply.

You seem to feel that farm land has no value. Not many will agree with
that,
least of all the peope who live near Stansted and who have made clear
their intense opposition to any expansion.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading
rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area. I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in
the Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

In any case, long before any airport expansion, Heathrow will have regular,
direct, high capacity rail connections to West London (Ealing), the West
End, City, Stratford, Canary Wharf and ExCel. It may also get regular,
direct rail connections to Slough and Reading and perhaps Staines as well.
Paddington is a red herring.

Robin9 wrote:

You seem to feel that farm land has no value.

There is no land in the UK that isn't owned by someone. Putting a runway
on farmland is disruptive to far fewer people than putting it on a town.
Therefore it is best to put it on farmland.

The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading
rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area.

So, if you've ever used it, does First Great Western. Remove HEx and
that's four more fast trains per hour they can run.

I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in
the
Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.

You don't think that many more business travellers will be destined for the
City of London and Canary Wharf than the Paddington area? Whyever not?
Paddington is nowhere near anywhere of significance.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 9 May 2013 09:51:20 GMT, Neil Williams
wrote:


You don't think that many more business travellers will be destined for the
City of London and Canary Wharf than the Paddington area? Whyever not?
Paddington is nowhere near anywhere of significance.

Sure, but Heathrow also has the Tube, and will soon have Crossrail,
giving it unsurpassed railway connections.

Recliner wrote:

Sure, but Heathrow also has the Tube, and will soon have Crossrail,
giving it unsurpassed railway connections.

True.

Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to reply.

On 08/05/2013 00:43, Recliner wrote:
[snip]
Exactly. Any new or greatly expanded inland airport will turn out to have
outraged neighbours just as unhappy as those who live under the Heathrow
flight paths. And one far enough away to annoy no-one will also be too far
away from the customers to be non-viable.

Not arguing in favour of Neil's Stansted option, but there would be
fewer "outraged neighbours" than a four runway Heathrow (where
'neighbour' = people under the flightpath).

Mizter T wrote:
On 08/05/2013 00:43, Recliner wrote:
[snip]
Exactly. Any new or greatly expanded inland airport will turn out to have
outraged neighbours just as unhappy as those who live under the Heathrow
flight paths. And one far enough away to annoy no-one will also be too far
away from the customers to be non-viable.

Not arguing in favour of Neil's Stansted option, but there would be fewer
"outraged neighbours" than a four runway Heathrow (where 'neighbour' =
people under the flightpath).

Looks like the Commons Transport Committee has seen sense:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-london-22469502

Extract:
"The government should reject the "Boris Island" Thames Estuary airport
plan and expand Heathrow instead, a report by MPs has said.

Mayor of London Boris Johnson has argued for a new hub airport in the
Thames Estuary.

Yet the House of Commons Transport Committee warned it would be hugely
expensive.

The mayor insists London needs a new airport and the only possible place is
east of London.

But the report also warned the new airport could mean the closure of
Heathrow and could harm estuary wildlife.

The MPs argue a third runway at Heathrow is necessary instead and even
suggest a fourth runway might have merit.

A third runway is opposed by both residents and councils in west London.

The committee said adding new runways to expand other existing airports was
not a long-term solution.

Committee chairwoman Louise Ellman MP said: "Research we commissioned made
plain that building an entirely new hub airport east of London could not be
done without huge public investment in new ground transport infrastructure.

"Evidence to our inquiry also showed a substantial potential impact on
wildlife habitat in the Thames Estuary.

"The viability of an estuary hub airport would also require the closure of
Heathrow - a course of action that would have unacceptable consequences."

"Recliner" wrote in message
...
On 8 May 2013 08:32:10 GMT, Neil Williams
wrote:

wrote:

I don't think your description of the Stansted area would meet with much
agreement in North West Essex.

I just looked at a map and the airport's immediate surrounds indeed are
either businesses of the type that support the airport and could be moved,
e.g. the car parks, or farmland. You could make it a lot bigger before
you
start taking out villages, unlike LHR.

Heathrow Airport has been buying up the properties that would be
subsumed by a third runway, so there won't be many remaining property
owners affected by a resurrected proposal.

ITYF that the people most affected are the ones whose property isn't bought
up, not the ones who are

tim

On Mon, 06 May 2013 18:22:21 -0500, Recliner
wrote:

I also prefer the Rogers' Heathrow T5 to his Barajas T4, though MAD is less
congested than LHR. The need to squash Heathrow's T5 into a limited space
has made it more efficient than the indulgent, sprawling
also-British-designed contemporaries in Beijing and Madrid.

(A late entry to this discussion!)

I really like T5, I hadn't thought about why but it's what you say --
it had to be squeezed in so it's not far to walk anywhere.

I think Barajas' T4 is a properly beautiful structure, though, and so
will forgive a recent change there where I arrived at one end of the
building and left from the other!

In the case of Heathrow vs other, I think it's impossible to ignore
LHR's history -- the "inertia" of workforce and clientele location --
and the many good (and about to get better) transport links to get
there. (It's just a pity that, from my direction, all my bus options
end at Heathrow Central rather than continuing to T5.)

It would be good to have the empty space to locate a Munich-sized
airport, but look at how relatively poor transport is there, although
maybe that's a special case, nothing much attempted while distracted
by a ridiculous monorail project.

Richard.