Heathrow third runway question

Soldato
Joined
26 Jan 2003
Posts
6,935
Location
Surrey
Whichever of the final options they opted for there was going to be an impact on the environment however Boris Island would just be totally unfeasible due to the whole area it's in being a Site of Special Scientific Interest (SSSI), Special Protection Area (SPA) and Ramsar site which means there'd be tons of work to do to provide alternative habitat for that lost as birds use that area massively!

Heathrow is still going to cause issues for local habitats and the South West London Waterbodies SSSI/SPA/Ramsar site but that's more to do with air pollution and noise considerations as the northern runway option doesn't mean direct loss for those reservoirs just to the south and west of the airport.

It'll be an interesting few years coming up now - lots of work to do in getting an amicable outcome for the environment!
 
Soldato
Joined
2 Dec 2005
Posts
5,515
Location
Herts
This was actually a really funny video about the Airports in London and their history

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AbAal7jIWQ4

Funny and interesting. Part 2 even better.

His closing thought (that it doesn't really make sense for any of our airports to be global hubs) is about the most sensible way to go really IMO. The competition (Paris, Frankfurt, and Amsterdam) are too good. Or at any rate are less hamstrung than the London options.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
So after the 'greenest government ever' and 'there will be no 3rd runway', we're now getting a 3rd runway (after a vote). I'm somewhat indifferent but it's hard not to think, have we lost a decade just to get to the inevitable? And I seem to remember an economic impact report a few years ago that claimed X, and the smallest of changes completely wiped the proposed benefit. Annoyingly I can't remember what it was referring to.
 
Soldato
Joined
8 Mar 2005
Posts
3,619
Location
London, UK
Should have built a 3rd runway at Heathrow and a 2nd at Gatwick decades ago PLUS create a new 2/4 runway airport within a 30-minute fast train link to central London. Whether that was Boris island or something else.
 
Associate
Joined
1 Apr 2006
Posts
265
Location
Chelmsford
About time they agreed this, though parliament still has to give the ok as well. Ideally Gatwick and Stansted could do with new runways too.

Ideally a new airport with a high speed rail link to London, if not then Gatwick.

Does any other city in the world have as many airports as London?
Officially it has 6 international airports. Technically it really has 2 as 4 of them aren't even in London.
Surprised they don't call them all London x e.g. London Manchester, London Glasgow etc.
 
Soldato
Joined
13 May 2003
Posts
8,849
Can’t see the sense in it myself. I’d rather we built a single modern hub airport in Northamptonshire or Buckinghamshire between M40 and M1 near route of HS2 accessible from North and South and a short high speed rail journey to central London. Then Heathrow could be down sized and hours further limited.

The cost and disruption of Runway 3 just doesn’t bear thinking about, the affect on the M25 alone should rule it out.
 
Caporegime
Joined
18 Oct 2002
Posts
28,092
Location
London
Way over budget and time needed to be built, a much worse environmental impact than initially projected and a worse final product. A government project this scale in the UK has these things written all over it.
 
Soldato
Joined
7 Nov 2002
Posts
7,502
Location
pantyhose factory
Ideally a new airport with a high speed rail link to London, if not then Gatwick.

Does any other city in the world have as many airports as London?

london only has one airport and that is city, the rest are just prefixed "London" to con people

Luton is not london
Stansted is even more not london
Southend......... now you are taking the ****
Heathrow is buckinghamshire
Gatwick is Surrey and if anything should be called Crawley Gatwick airport. But then who in their sane midn wants to fly to that **** hole called crawley ?
 
Back
Top Bottom