Third runway at London-Heathrow?

[Cyril Haearn]

MPs voted to make the worlds greatest airport even bigger
BoJo was not there

Many tories voted for expansion but those with constituencies nearby mostly voted against, although their constituents would benefit from new jobs €€€! I guess the tories from the Shires were mostly in favour?

What do you think? Where will it end? 1bn people can fly now, 6m can not yet, the aviation industry wants to expand drastically, a dozen new airports are opening in China each year

What about Broughton, North Wales? (enormous plane factory)

[pwa]

Apparently Wales is more dependent on the car than any other part of the UK. For a fraction of what will be spent on another London infrastructure project we could see real changes for the better. The UK Government could not even find money to electrify the main rail line between Cardiff and Swansea. But no, it is a London airport project that really needs the money. Don't they know that the UK beyond the South East needs money for transport too?

I'm not making a special plea for Wales here. I'm making a special plea for every part of the UK outside the South East, always being told that our infrastructure projects cannot happen because they would cost too much, then watching as yet another London mega project gets the the green light. Waiting for our turn would be okay, but our turn never comes.

[Steady rider]

When I last visited Australia I flew from Manchester with my bike, quite convenient coming from the York area. Flying from somewhere like Doncaster or Leeds would have even better but they don't fly to Australia. On return the flight arrived in Heathrow, massive busy airport. I had to change to another terminal to get my connection to Manchester, that involved a short rail journey. It was difficult with the bicycle transferring to the other terminal.
Collecting the luggage twice and the delays added hours to the return journey and the Heathrow stop was a waste of time.

Expanding Heathrow will make it even more complex and less likely for return flights from far off lands, will go to such as Manchester. Expansion is the wrong solution for the location being south west of London. If it had been centrally located such as Birmingham it may have reduced travel within the UK.I would prefer to see funding go to regional airports, reducing travel distances within the UK and spending less on London and more across the country.

[mjr]

I'm with pwa on this except that I don't think it benefits the 17m living in the London and South-East regions more than it hurts to have this pollution disaster on their doorstep either. There is so much that could be done with this government transport budget to benefit the country more widely. Even travel links from the South East region towards the Midlands and Wales could really do with strengthening.

There are also interesting questions about whether there's some hope to make Heathrow a more attractive hub than any EU airport to profit in some way, what that will mean about transit visa rules and how that will affect the UK's sea and more importantly land borders. I'll post some thoughts on the Brexit topic when I get time after catching up with it.

[PDQ Mobile]

I totally agree.
Heathrow sits in the middle of some of the most congested roads in the UK!
And it's rail links are rather poor.

This Govt. (and Parliament) make yet another bad decision.

It has been discussed on here at length before:-

viewtopic.php?f=6&t=109978&start=45&hilit=Heathrow

[Ben@Forest]

In bald economic terms the cluster of London airports are obviously not 'big enough already' otherwise there would be no need for expansion. Rightly or wrongly the UK is 'London-centric' and that's where people want to fly to. Apart from its hub status Heathrow is good for tourists who want to see London, Oxford, the Cotswolds etc. They may also travel to the Yorkshire Dales or Edinburgh but they do that by transiting through London first.

Most people I know take holidays where they have to fly twice a year (that includes a fair few cyclists who fly to Majorca and other such destinations). Anybody who takes advantage of the relative ease and low cost of doing that is not in a position to throw stones.

[mjr]

In bald economic terms the cluster of London airports are obviously not 'big enough already' otherwise there would be no need for expansion. Rightly or wrongly the UK is 'London-centric' and that's where people want to fly to. Apart from its hub status Heathrow is good for tourists who want to see London, Oxford, the Cotswolds etc. They may also travel to the Yorkshire Dales or Edinburgh but they do that by transiting through London first.

Why isn't that assessing demand for a bridge by the numbers swimming across a river? People fly into the London airports because that's where most routes and capacity currently go.

The "need" for expansion is mostly wishful business forecasting, as so often for "national importance" transport projects sited in London, rather than the low glamour relatively low speed high capacity stuff needed.

Most people I know take holidays where they have to fly twice a year (that includes a fair few cyclists who fly to Majorca and other such destinations). Anybody who takes advantage of the relative ease and low cost of doing that is not in a position to throw stones.

Oh goody. As this year, I'll have gone abroad once by rail and twice by boat, I'll load up the rocks!

[toontra]

Maybe a minor consideration but (as this is a cycling forum!) I want to know what provision there would be for cyclists going east/west along the existing A4, a route I use regularly. I presume that's also how the majority of staff who cycle to work (claimed to be a "priority" by the airport authority ) access Heathrow at the moment.

There is talk of tunnels. How cycle-friendly would they be, I wonder?

[Ben@Forest]

Why isn't that assessing demand for a bridge by the numbers swimming across a river? People fly into the London airports because that's where most routes and capacity currently go.

Not really, look at Prestwick. It's massively underused and only Ryanair fly scheduled flights in and out. The Scottish government took it over because it was making a loss but it's still making a loss four(?) years later.

You'd think that more foreign tourists would think that Scotland would be a good place to start and finish their UK holiday but they don't. Later this year a good NZ friend, whose parents hailed from Glasgow and who still has Scottish relatives is flying into the UK. As with the last three times he's going to London/SE where he'll spend a week before heading to northern England and then a brief visit north of the border. Flying to Scotland never seems to be a better option.

[Psamathe]

Apparently Wales is more dependent on the car than any other part of the UK. For a fraction of what will be spent on another London infrastructure project we could see real changes for the better. The UK Government could not even find money to electrify the main rail line between Cardiff and Swansea. But no, it is a London airport project that really needs the money. Don't they know that the UK beyond the South East needs money for transport too?

I'm not making a special plea for Wales here. I'm making a special plea for every part of the UK outside the South East, always being told that our infrastructure projects cannot happen because they would cost too much, then watching as yet another London mega project gets the the green light. Waiting for our turn would be okay, but our turn never comes.

+1. It's London, London, London, South East, London.

Ian

[Psamathe]

At least Boris was in there, representing his constituents on something they feel very strongly about, honouring his election campaign promises, etc. Reliable and as predictable as ever, Buffoon.

Ian

[mercalia]

I have cycled around that way and heard and seen the planes coming into land - they come SO close to the ground and are SO LOOOOOOOUUUUUUD AND BIIIG. I would not like to live around there. Airports should never be placed near a built up area for security reasons? A terrorist couldnt miss at the height they come in and the death toll would be so high. will happen one day I think there?

[mjr]

Why isn't that assessing demand for a bridge by the numbers swimming across a river? People fly into the London airports because that's where most routes and capacity currently go.

Not really, look at Prestwick. It's massively underused and only Ryanair fly scheduled flights in and out. The Scottish government took it over because it was making a loss but it's still making a loss four(?) years later.

How is that "not really"? I say flight capacity goes to London airports and you say a Scottish airport has space to take more flights - sounds like we agree, except that you seem to suggest that people want to go to London's hinterland and that's why flight capacity has been provided there, while I think London's almost always had more flights than anywhere and that's why more people go there. A Midlands hub would make much more sense for most of this country, while London mainly makes more sense if you're aiming to be a profitable entry point for travellers to Europe more widely and don't give a [inappropriate word removed] about pollution.

[Steady rider]

Is there a good assessment of the options, expanding Heathrow, spreading the load to other London near by airports, using existing regional airports - Manchester to take some of the load. They fly UK to Australia - do they cater for incoming from Au ?. I had to come back via Heathrow.

Providing a direct rail line to Europe from the north - i.e. reducing the need to fly to close by locations - Dover to York via new connecting line, trains are more efficient than aircraft. Where is the assessments?

[mercalia]

Is there a good assessment of the options, expanding Heathrow, spreading the load to other London near by airports, using existing regional airports - Manchester to take some of the load. They fly UK to Australia - do they cater for incoming from Au ?. I had to come back via Heathrow.

Providing a direct rail line to Europe from the north - i.e. reducing the need to fly to close by locations - Dover to York via new connecting line, trains are more efficient than aircraft. Where is the assessments?

still dont understand why Gatwick was rejected. Has generally good fast train link, plenty of space around there to expand. I cant help but think some vested interests have been at work in the tory party