Forum menu
What do people want?
both
our own governmemt keen to improve the countries infrastructure at a local level as well as big national projects, like these
and keeping us an outward looking place (with single market access and freedom of movement) that attracts investors to generate jobs and grow the economy
criticisms of hinkley or HS2 for example are definitely not just about the source of funding
[quote=teamhurtmore ]What do people want?
To keep foreigners out, apparently.
Oops, wrong thread.
heathrow, hinkley, HS2 all absolutely essential now, lack of foreign investors in the UK post brexit, means itll have to be taxpayer funded stimulus
If only there'd been some long term plan to foster home-grown talent eh? We could have used EU membership to allow people to train overseas and bring skills back. If we'd been planning to become more insular, that is.
Although why anyone in power would want to do that is a mystery.
[i]Actually runway expansion at Heathrow will mean less pollution than the alternative options of expanding other airports. Despite the additional capacity airlines will still choose to operate bigger, larger capacity aircraft in and out of the airport so fewer but larger aircraft that are far more efficient and less polluting than more smaller aircraft. Also with airlines operating out of fewer 'mega hubs' rather than splitting their fleets and operations across several airports will mean far more efficient infrastructure for getting passengers to and from the airport, which is far more polluting and environmentally unfriendly by an order of magnitude or two than the actual operation of the aircraft themselves. [/I]
Except that model doesn't quite seem to be in now, witness the slowdown in A380 sales.
[quote=aracer ]I'm not sure the by-election is totally pointless - it gives the voters a chance to give the government a kicking, as I'm sure they'll see Goldsmith as a proxy for the government still. Of course it's likely he'll try and fight it on a single issue, but then I presume the Lib Dems aren't strongly in favour of the extra runway and can easily put up a candidate also standing on the ticket of opposing it, hence moving it to other ground.
Well there we go:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-37779423
molgrips - Member
So the terminals can now handle the traffic of two runways, but the third runway is going to take some traffic from them? So they are going to be emptier?
Some pro Heathrow business and airline folk were on the radio saying about how this was going to be so great for business as it can allow 1000+ more flights (a day?). Not then the reason that was being thrown about from airlines that an extra runway would allow the load to spread out and we can be rid of the stacks over London and cope with incidents and weather.
All that will happen is capacity will fill to max again, we have 1000 more planes in the sky, so we'll need extra stacks up there, more pollution and noise, and then there's a demand for a 4th runway.
Meanwhile more traffic on the M25 to get people to Heathrow, and the extra lanes already built to ease congestion have instead just filled to capacity, so likewise more lanes need to be built, which will fill to capacity.
Though how they'll add more lanes once a runway is over the road, I'm not sure.
I think they should have the runway go across the M25 and put traffic lights on the road. Just enough time between each plane to floor it across before the next one 😀
Whichever way you slice it, the thinking on HTR is so short sighted it makes Mr Magoo look like he's 20/20..
Civil engineering projects in this country are so poorly conceived it's criminal..
I'd love to know of any in the last decade that could be reasonably described as a success I.e. At the very least they were on time & on budget...
mrlebowski
The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.
All that will happen is capacity will fill to max again, we have 1000 more planes in the sky, so we'll need extra stacks up there, more pollution and noise, and then there's a demand for a 4th runway.
You will need the demand for the extra flights.
Meanwhile more traffic on the M25 to get people to Heathrow, and the extra lanes already built to ease congestion have instead just filled to capacity, so likewise more lanes need to be built, which will fill to capacity.
If the infrastructure is done right it shoudl aliviate some pressure. If you could link LHR into the rail mainlines properly from the North then it make it a more attractive proposition.
...If you could link LHR into the rail mainlines properly from the North then it make it a more attractive proposition.
Yes, this could be done.
No, it won't be.
They need to destroy 800 homes for expand the airport, how many more to widden the m25 and train lines?
mrlebowskiThe new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.
Not this country 😉
Sad thing is they don't have to build a new runway. They 'just' need to deal with the current inefficiency. Ages ago a guy was on the radio saying if they really wanted to , they could sort out the 50% inefficiency to solve the problems. However, no one wants to take on such a big task since it's (supposedly) easier to just build another runway and ignore the trail of devastation in its wake (extra pollution, destroying people's lives etc)...
The new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.
That's one out of how many?
Give me a few more than that & might believe it's possible........MIGHT......
That section is already the busiest part of the M25 (according to the BBC), which probably makes it busiest in the country ?!
So an extra 1000 flights a day will mean a huge increase in traffic, would require a wideningband redesign of the junction, as well as the runway ramp.
10 years of 50 limit and night closures, would be my prediction
Just to put some realism in there 100 flights is one every 1min 26ish... If they are just landing so landing and taking off is one every 40s, I've never seen a runway that tight. Where did that number come from
Yup having lived near the flightpath its one every 90 seconds over your head
Have lain in bed counting!
mikewsmith - Member
Just to put some realism in there 100 flights is one every 1min 26ish... If they are just landing so landing and taking off is one every 40s, I've never seen a runway that tight. Where did that number come from
Was on the radio from some pro Heathrow business and airline types, but figures seem to be all over the place. I didn't catch if they meant per day or week.
Zac (anti) claims 300,000 extra a year - http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/10/15/zac-goldsmith-investors-beware-i-will-never-let-a-third-runway-b/
So around 800 a day.
I've seen various articles suggest 200,000 extra, so more like 500 extra a day.
Just been reminded by someone - the T5 public inquiry took just under 4 years.....
Yup having lived near the flightpath its one every 90 seconds over your head
One ever 90s is about 500/day (what lands must take off etc)
It must be a very compelling to case to build it on top of the M25 when we have so many fields without motorways in them.
Fields are kind of useful... The space on top of the m25 isn't
[quote=wilburt ]It must be a very compelling to case to build it on top of the M25 when we have so many fields without motorways in them.
How many runway size fields are there in close proximity to Heathrow?
UKIP are backing Goldsmith .
so Brexit V remain ?
tjagain - MemberThe new forth road bridge. On time and under budget.
Not really brain surgery- it's a fixed price contract with realistic timescales. (it's still got room to slip if we have a bad winter mind, the nominal deadline is IIRC march 2017)
It's more interesting for what it says about the way public sector bidding normally works though- they had 39 bids for the contract and all but 2 backed out when they discovered they were going to be held to the bid.
Fixed price contracts for grey asset jobs are difficult.
Particularly if they're also target cost.
[quote=cchris2lou ]UKIP are backing Goldsmith .
so Brexit V remain ?
This feels like the wrong thread for the Goldsmith by-election, but there was a segment on this on the politics programme this morning. They did a survey in the middle of the constituency - when asked which they were more worried about, twice as many selected Brexit as Heathrow. Clearly not a very scientific survey, but then neither is it a binary choice - because the Lib Dem candidate is also anti 3rd runway. So as much as the Tory council leader was trying to spin it as a referendum on Heathrow, it's not going to be that and the main difference is Brexit. I'm genuinely thinking they might kick out Goldsmith.