http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.

John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.

If it were to be redeveloped, I imagine a semi-independent town would be
in order, with a central office district around the railway stations and
houses surrounding that.

However, I'm sure it would never come to that - there are too many
vested interests in the area. Surely most businesses in the surrounding
area (and indeed many in the Thames Valley) are only there because
Heathrow is there.


--
Dave Arquati
Imperial College, SW7
www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London

John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.


I agree with the report, at least with regards to it's criticism of
Heathrow as the location of London's main airport. Such criticism is
nothing new, though it's still great to have an authoritative report
such as this clearly lay out the reasons why Heathrow is a calamity.

I also agree with your point John, it's what came to mind when I heard
the story earlier today - why build houses when the airport jobs would
be going.

But I think any such argument is highly academic. I can't see any
government anytime in the near making a decision future to close
Heathrow and open a new airport out east, however good the case may be.
It'd be a massive political scorching-red-hot potato.


Anyway here's some very interesting reading about how Heathrow came to
be - basically Harry Balfour, the Aviation Minister, conned the War
Cabinet into requisitioning the site for a military airfield using
wartime powers, but he only really had in mind Heathrow becoming the
site of London's main civilian airport after the war finished. An
example of just the kind of deceptive hotchpotch planning we do best in
Britain!

http://www.thisislongford.com/heathr...me_To_Heathrow

Mizter T wrote:
John Rowland wrote:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.


I agree with the report, at least with regards to it's criticism of
Heathrow as the location of London's main airport. Such criticism is
nothing new, though it's still great to have an authoritative report
such as this clearly lay out the reasons why Heathrow is a calamity.

I also agree with your point John, it's what came to mind when I heard
the story earlier today - why build houses when the airport jobs would
be going.

But I think any such argument is highly academic. I can't see any
government anytime in the near making a decision future to close
Heathrow and open a new airport out east, however good the case may be.
It'd be a massive political scorching-red-hot potato.


Anyway here's some very interesting reading about how Heathrow came to
be - basically Harry Balfour, the Aviation Minister, conned the War
Cabinet into requisitioning the site for a military airfield using
wartime powers, but he only really had in mind Heathrow becoming the
site of London's main civilian airport after the war finished. An
example of just the kind of deceptive hotchpotch planning we do best in
Britain!

http://www.thisislongford.com/heathr...me_To_Heathrow

Just happened by and noticed this.

Cheer up, things could be worse, you could be here!

Please be advised that as far as 'hotchpotch' planning is concerned, you
chaps don't hold a candle to San Diego, California. We've been studying
a new airport location for almost 40 years and have spent millions on
outside consultants. Meanwhile, we've built noise sensitive entities on
every potential site. We do not have a viable course of action.

....Lmac

LMac wrote:
We've been studying a new airport location for almost 40 years and have spent millions on
outside consultants.

Only millions? My employer has spent millions on consultants to change
a freakin' lightbulb (well, thousands anyway)

"Paul Weaver" wrote in
oups.com:

LMac wrote:
We've been studying a new airport location for almost 40 years and
have spent millions on outside consultants.

Only millions? My employer has spent millions on consultants to change
a freakin' lightbulb (well, thousands anyway)





Not going to happen. Could have saved you the money.

(a) the impact on local employment would be huge. People would be more
****ed off about the jobs going (not just at the airport but in local shops
and hotels etc) than about the impact on the local environment or noise
pollution.

(b) the impact on the Thames Estuary's environment would be far more
dangerous than at Heathrow where the damage has been done, and the
environmental lobby would (quite rightly so) be a force to be reckoned
with.

(c) Stanstead already serves that "side" of London more than adequately, so
traffic-wise it would be a disaster to move another major airport to the
East, while we have (kinda) Luton to the North, Heathrow to the West,
Gatwick to the South, Stanstead to the East, and City in the middle. The
system isn't perfect, but it's not bad, and the thought of having the two
main airports to the East would be crazy.

(d) It'll never work.

"Paul Weaver" wrote: We've been studying a new
airport location for almost 40 years and have spent millions on
outside consultants.

Only millions? My employer has spent millions on consultants to change
a freakin' lightbulb (well, thousands anyway)

BBC?

--
"For want of the price of tea and a slice, the old man died."

Dave Arquati wrote:
John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.

If it were to be redeveloped, I imagine a semi-independent town would be
in order, with a central office district around the railway stations and
houses surrounding that.

However, I'm sure it would never come to that - there are too many
vested interests in the area. Surely most businesses in the surrounding
area (and indeed many in the Thames Valley) are only there because
Heathrow is there.

A compromise might be to keep Terminals 4 and 5, and the south Runway,
and build a town to the North. That way all the businesses around
Heathrow would still have an airport, but it only be as big as Gatwick.

wrote:

A compromise might be to keep Terminals 4 and 5, and the south Runway,
and build a town to the North. That way all the businesses around
Heathrow would still have an airport, but it only be as big as
Gatwick.

Terminal 4 is difficult to serve by the existing and planned railways, so it
would be better to close that.

John Rowland wrote:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/london/5024770.stm

I can't see the logic of building houses at Heathrow and then complaining
about the job losses devastating West London. Surely Heathrow should be
turned into an industrial estate/business park, if anything.

Absolutely agree. Heathrow is one of the most badly planned airports in
Europe. Not only does it reduce the quality of life for millions living
in West London, it is also a huge security threat. How can we allow a
situation where routinely, widebody aircraft fly over central London at
30 second intervals and low altitude? That's just asking for a huge
disaster.

What I suggest: Build a completely new airport with four runways
somewhere in the vicinity of Northhampton. This location is closer to
the population center of mass of England, well connected, and far away
from any large residential areas. Connect the airport to central London
with a 300mph maglev (like the one in Shanghai). The journey to the
airport would take 15 min, which isn't any longer than currently by
Heathrow express.

The entire project could be funded by a) selling the land occipied by
Heathrow b) imposing a one-off 10% windfall tax on property buyers in
the areas in West London affected by aircraft noise. House prices near
the airport should be expected to increase if it is closed.

It has been done in Hong Kong. Why can't it be done in London?