New Thames Airport for London
a proper strategic review would ring fence a proportion of these new slots as non served domestic routes to allow connectivity within the British Isles (yes I KNOW!), to be safegaurded and built upon. That would be the likes of INV, JER, IOM, GCI and the possibility of adding MME, NQY and maintaining LBA. This would allow LHR to directly benefit the regions with one stop to the world and would be served by modern and quiet aircraft.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion."
Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.
Quote: "Have you never heard of a compulsory purchase order?"
Indeed, but do you have any idea of the cost (in compensation)?
Quote: "Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain."
A site of special scientific interest and wildlife haven in the Thames estuary "the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain"?
You're losing it big time, silverstrata!
Quote: "You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe."
No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.
Quote: "We NEED landspace, and the relocation of LHR will not only give us extra landspace, it will place much of the noise nuisance of Europe's biggest airport out in the estuary. That is not a drawback, it is a selling-point."
Obviously it isn't a selling-point, the idea of an estuary airport has been around since the 1950s. Rightly, it has never been taken seriously.
Quote: "JER, IOM, GCI - benefit the regions? Aren't these just commuter routes for bankers??"
Look on the bright side: bankers could provide decent yields for carriers on those routes. There is other traffic as well, for example, tourism and businesses other than offshore banking/financial services.
Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.
Quote: "Have you never heard of a compulsory purchase order?"
Indeed, but do you have any idea of the cost (in compensation)?
Quote: "Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain."
A site of special scientific interest and wildlife haven in the Thames estuary "the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain"?
You're losing it big time, silverstrata!
Quote: "You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land. The UK is, thanks to the efforts of New Labour to bury the UK under 500 million people, the most densely populated nation in Europe."
No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.
Quote: "We NEED landspace, and the relocation of LHR will not only give us extra landspace, it will place much of the noise nuisance of Europe's biggest airport out in the estuary. That is not a drawback, it is a selling-point."
Obviously it isn't a selling-point, the idea of an estuary airport has been around since the 1950s. Rightly, it has never been taken seriously.
Quote: "JER, IOM, GCI - benefit the regions? Aren't these just commuter routes for bankers??"
Look on the bright side: bankers could provide decent yields for carriers on those routes. There is other traffic as well, for example, tourism and businesses other than offshore banking/financial services.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Fantasy Island cannot be built without shutting down its competitors, therefore it cannot be built. End of discussion."
Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.
Nicely put, jabird, succint and to the point.
Quote: "Which is exactly why it WILL be built. What developer could not resist getting their hands on the most valuable piece of real-estate in Britain."
The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.
55dB noise exposure for LHR is 700k+, LGW & STN between them are about 25k.
That is why, from a noise perspective, these locations are far less sensitive than LHR, whatever the commercial case or political challenges.
You are rather forgetting that one of the MAIN attractions of Silver-Boris, is that it is NOT on dry land.
I suggest that you are just looking at Google's countourless maps, saying our geology is the same as theirs, and putting 2 + 2 together to make about 500.
By your own logic for Heathrow, land for housing is more valuable than land for airports. Therefore, if we can't make a proposal work for housing (in fact, afaik no developer has ever even suggested it), why is it going to work for an airport?
Remember, the Dutch have also looked at taking AMS offshore, and dismissed it. Why would we be any better when we have virtually zero experience in the field, apart from Arup's levelling two mountains to build Kansai, and then realsiing they needed another one to complete the job. And Japan's debt per capita is?
Now I really will say end of discussion!
Last edited by jabird; 13th Jul 2012 at 23:03.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You could also say that about Belgium and the Netherlands - in the latter, the population is around the Ranstaad."
Belgium and the Netherlands do not have the vast empty spaces that we have in the UK: the moors in Devon and Cornwall; Cambrian mountains and Snowdonia, the Pennines and the Yorkshire moors, the Cheviots, the Grampians, the Highlands and Islands, and much of Northern Ireland. My comment that huge swathes of the UK are empty is accurate.
Quote: "Yet despite this, Schiphol still has a tiny noise footprint compared to LHR. This is the problem with a 3rd runway - you can't just say jets are getting quieter, look up:"
Having lived under the flightpath in west Middlesex for many years (and old enough to remember the noisy jets of the 1960s), yes I can!
Belgium and the Netherlands do not have the vast empty spaces that we have in the UK: the moors in Devon and Cornwall; Cambrian mountains and Snowdonia, the Pennines and the Yorkshire moors, the Cheviots, the Grampians, the Highlands and Islands, and much of Northern Ireland. My comment that huge swathes of the UK are empty is accurate.
Quote: "Yet despite this, Schiphol still has a tiny noise footprint compared to LHR. This is the problem with a 3rd runway - you can't just say jets are getting quieter, look up:"
Having lived under the flightpath in west Middlesex for many years (and old enough to remember the noisy jets of the 1960s), yes I can!
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My comment that huge swathes of the UK are empty is accurate.
However, I was just pointing out that even in the Benelux region, there are also areas of lower and higher population density - Belgium spreads out a bit beneath the Liege - Charleroi axis, there is also quite a bit of space around Apeldoorn in NL.
Having lived under the flightpath in west Middlesex for many years (and old enough to remember the noisy jets of the 1960s), yes I can!
My point was that the sheer number of people exposed to high noise levels around LHR is still far greater than anywhere else - as an outright figure, even if the noise is slowly declining.
LHR noise (#exposed people) > MAD, CDG, AMS & FRA combined and also is approx 20x STN + LGW combined.
That is the challenge.
Now if we keep talking about it long enough (and make no mistake, the DfT document is nothing other than a talking shop with zero content), the next but one generation of aircraft might be genuinely silent, rather than just quiet, and you can have your 3rd runway no problem.
Paxing All Over The World
Quote:
1.21 We believe that the role of the Government should be largely confined to facilitating a competitive aviation market
From DfT document just released.
That's a great quote because, it can mean that the DfT would facilitate a competitive aviation market by allowing a private contractor to build an Island and facilitate them going head to head with EGLL. Facilitating does not mean compulsory purchase / privatisation of a compnay (BAA plc) and then shutting down the operation.
1.21 We believe that the role of the Government should be largely confined to facilitating a competitive aviation market
From DfT document just released.
That's a great quote because, it can mean that the DfT would facilitate a competitive aviation market by allowing a private contractor to build an Island and facilitate them going head to head with EGLL. Facilitating does not mean compulsory purchase / privatisation of a compnay (BAA plc) and then shutting down the operation.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Facilitating does not mean compulsory purchase / privatisation of a compnay (BAA plc) and then shutting down the operation.
You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.
Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.
How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
My point was that the sheer number of people exposed to high noise levels around LHR is still far greater than anywhere else - as an outright figure, even if the noise is slowly declining.
When people say "government help" they just mean fling more taxpayers dosh at it and see if that helps. all it does is temporarily skew the market.
It's LHR for the future, stop looking at what's being said, look at what's being done.
Crossrail and the investment to LHR
Terminal 5 and term of depreciation
Terminal 2 and term of depreciation
Only in the last week, people are now seriously floating the idea of a fourth runway at Heathrow, something I thought we'd never see. For Fantasy Island to work, you have to close LHR, no question in my view. You then need to pay BAA, a major sum of money above and beyond the market rate of the land, at the end of a fairly long court case I would guess, then write off all investment in Crossrail at LHR, the Heathrow Express and Connect then demolish the still new Terminal 5 and Terminal 2. Can you see HMG writing that sort of a cheque AND financing the building of a concerete floating island off the east coast.
Then you have the political and economic fall out from decoupling the M4 corridor from access to the national hub, the raison d'etre of many of the industries and jobs therein. You have just done that, in an era of mobile globalisation????
For the sake of what? SIPSON? I mean I have been there, it's not worth quite that amount of money I have to say.
Look the public thinks the Bank of England just prints money and HMG doles it out, responsible people take tough decisions, I respected many in the last government for the unpopular stance on LHR expansion, it's taking this government a little too long to learn the ropes.
Will this thread ever die I wonder?
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 14th Jul 2012 at 00:06.
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Coventry
Age: 48
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
This whole debate has a child like quality. People want power without power stations.............
When we had the local debate here, over (much smaller) CVT, the word "nimby" was often used against those opposing the airport, including by myself.
Although I didn't live near the argument, I pointed out that my street has 6 pubs on it, despite being in a "residential" area, and that it was not my position to complain about the noise they caused, given the very reasons you mention.
I think we ought to append the phrase nimby into two forms:
"NIMBY - because actually, I think there is somewhere better for this" and
"NIMBY / BANANA" - build absolutely nothing, anywhere, NEVER at-all!
My other argument for CVT was that it has a tiny noise footprint compared to the nearest alternative, which was BHX.
My argument was - how can you say airlines should go to BHX when they will disturb 5x as many people as they would if they used CVT?
In the case of STN or LGW v LHR, the noise argument is EVEN MORE skewed than that - more like 20:1.
Anyone pointing at LGW and STN does not understand how a commercial market works with reference to a strategic hub airport of national importance.
Having read through the gov-guff yesterday, there was one hell of a lot of focus on the BRICS, which in 2002 accounted for 5% of passengers to UK airports. Now they've gone up to a whopping 6%! The biggest growth has come from the former Eastern Bloc who are now EU members - e.g. 750% for Poland v. 40% for the BRICS.
Not one new route to Poland has been added by the legacy carriers (iirc, BA used to do LGW-KRK, now gone). Even MOW is within range of a 738 / 321.
Of course, a hub operation means more spokes can be connected to each other, but the revenue gain from having more transfer traffic is marginal.
The reason for promoting the hub is that routes that might otherwise be too thin can start. The question for you is - just how much more valuable is it to us to go after these routes, as opposed to adding capacity on existing routes, or serving the local market with more loco traffic?
Remember, even with LHR3, we go from having 2 runways serving a "major hub" operation and 5 that don't to 3:5. Whatever happens at LHR, the overall London market is still going to be dispersed through multiple airports.
Only in the last week, people are now seriously floating the idea of a fourth runway at Heathrow, something I thought we'd never see.
I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam. Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".
For Fantasy Island to work, you have to close LHR, no question in my view.
You then need to pay BAA, a major sum of money above and beyond the market rate of the land
at the end of a fairly long court case I would guess
Then what happens when the other (now non BAA) airports get involved - "why are you subsidising the surface access to this airport" and so on!
, then write off all investment in Crossrail at LHR, the Heathrow Express and Connect then demolish the still new Terminal 5 and Terminal 2.
To redevelop this site in a way which justifies the infra that is already there, you'd have to start building tall, essentially Canary Wharf Mk2. And then, I think the CPRE would be stepping in saying "you can't close this airport and turn it into tower blocks"!
AS previously mentioned, terminal buildings are not like grand old station halls - change of use would be a challenge, especially as the 21st Century society would try to get them listed.
Paxing All Over The World
jabird Sorry, I had my tongue firmly in my cheek and yet did not insert the requisite number of 
.
My view has always been:
.My view has always been:
- Islands are never going to happen
- LHR 3rd is the only game
- But, by the time we get around to building it - the demand will have levelled off for a variety of reasons - although it is still needed when one of the mains is unavailable
Last edited by PAXboy; 16th Jul 2012 at 00:28.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "No, but with LHR still open, how do you attract airlines to Fantasy Island?"
Another question that Silver needs to answer properly but won't, probably can't. Nonsense about compulsory purchase orders is not answering it!
Quote: "You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.
Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.
How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!"
A phased approach won't work, no carrier at LHR wants to go to the estuary, whether with one rwy or four. It's the same argument for not expanding STN, and to a lesser extent, LGW. Indeed at LGW, the movement is from LGW to LHR when slots become available.
Quote: "Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3"."
Could be, or else reality is setting in, and minds are being concentrated:
1. four rwys are needed, and needed now, the third was needed years ago;
2. four rwys allow the continuation of alternation - necessary to placate local residents;
3. if a fourth rwy is asked for later, there will another twenty years of nonsense, best get it over and done with at the same time as a third rwy;
4. the area north of the airport needs to be planned very carefully for 2 more rwys and the associated infrastructure (there will not be a rwy south of the airport), so do it together.
It's more likely that incremental moves to mixed mode are the ploy to make expansion more palatable to local residents, rather than the "ask for 4 and accept 3" strategy.
Quote: "I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam."
Maybe, but not convinced that the fantasy is gaining credibility.
Quote: "Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".
Had they done this in 03, instead of prevaricating for 6 years, the third rwy would be up and running by now!
Another question that Silver needs to answer properly but won't, probably can't. Nonsense about compulsory purchase orders is not answering it!
Quote: "You would be left with a phased approach - let's start with one runway, like Kansai.
Hang on a minute, investors get jitters - that is still going to cost us £20bn.
How much did you say that 2nd runway at Gatters was going to cost? £2bn? Ah!"
A phased approach won't work, no carrier at LHR wants to go to the estuary, whether with one rwy or four. It's the same argument for not expanding STN, and to a lesser extent, LGW. Indeed at LGW, the movement is from LGW to LHR when slots become available.
Quote: "Yes, very good point. As already mentioned, this is very much along the lines of "ask for 4, accept 3"."
Could be, or else reality is setting in, and minds are being concentrated:
1. four rwys are needed, and needed now, the third was needed years ago;
2. four rwys allow the continuation of alternation - necessary to placate local residents;
3. if a fourth rwy is asked for later, there will another twenty years of nonsense, best get it over and done with at the same time as a third rwy;
4. the area north of the airport needs to be planned very carefully for 2 more rwys and the associated infrastructure (there will not be a rwy south of the airport), so do it together.
It's more likely that incremental moves to mixed mode are the ploy to make expansion more palatable to local residents, rather than the "ask for 4 and accept 3" strategy.
Quote: "I also suspect that this lobby is a response to the Fantasy Island promotion also gaining steam."
Maybe, but not convinced that the fantasy is gaining credibility.
Quote: "Back in 03, when Cliffe was proposed, it was widely accepted that this was so the govt could say "well we aren't building Cliffe, LHR 3 is quite reasonable in comparisosn".
Had they done this in 03, instead of prevaricating for 6 years, the third rwy would be up and running by now!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 16th Jul 2012 at 23:13.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Kent
Age: 47
Posts: 2
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time. We are now seeing the politics being slowly brought round to the inevitable conclusion. JG saying she is against it and then talking about a new railway to connect LHR from the west
Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved.
The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK.
The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?
Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved.
The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK.
The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "I think most people can see that the 3rd runway at Heathrow is a done deal and probably has been for some time. We are now seeing the politics being slowly brought round to the inevitable conclusion. JG saying she is against it and then talking about a new railway to connect LHR from the west"
Exactly, Justine has mistakenly allied herself very strongly with the anti-LHR lobby and her position is untenable. Cameron must be aware that having such a biased transport secretary of state is unacceptable.
Have a feeling that there will be some "falling on swords" before too long.
Quote: "Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved."
The trouble is that they do think we're all stupid, and they love wasting public money. The electorate is too often treated with contempt (by all the political parties).
Quote: "The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK."
Agreed, but not convinced about keeping/gaining votes. It's a technical and very localised issue, irrelevant to much of the country. Even to most under the flightpath, there are other more important issues to determine voting intentions.
Quote: "The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?"
The endless postponement of the "consultation" is probably Cameron's way of buying time while he decides how to execute another U-turn.
The difficulty with this particular U-turn is that it has much to do with coalition politics, where the Clegg tail is wagging the Cameron dog. The Libdems are against any new rwys in the southeast. By implication, that includes the estuary airport. Could the recent announcements on rail electrification be a way of "softening up" the Libdems?
The Conservatives made a major mistake when they reversed Labour's belated approval for LHR expansion, and they know it. They should have accepted it as a fait accompli.
Exactly, Justine has mistakenly allied herself very strongly with the anti-LHR lobby and her position is untenable. Cameron must be aware that having such a biased transport secretary of state is unacceptable.
Have a feeling that there will be some "falling on swords" before too long.
Quote: "Do these people really believe we are all that stupid? How much money are they going to waste on bogus island airport schemes that were never going to get approved. At the same time they are constructing tunnels to the very airport that would need to close should these 'pie in the sky' projects get approved."
The trouble is that they do think we're all stupid, and they love wasting public money. The electorate is too often treated with contempt (by all the political parties).
Quote: "The third runway will be built and rightly so, but much, much later than it should have been due to these people being more concerned with keeping/gaining votes than with the good of the UK."
Agreed, but not convinced about keeping/gaining votes. It's a technical and very localised issue, irrelevant to much of the country. Even to most under the flightpath, there are other more important issues to determine voting intentions.
Quote: "The consultation has been postponed because it is too controversial. Isnt that why we need a consultation in the first place?"
The endless postponement of the "consultation" is probably Cameron's way of buying time while he decides how to execute another U-turn.
The difficulty with this particular U-turn is that it has much to do with coalition politics, where the Clegg tail is wagging the Cameron dog. The Libdems are against any new rwys in the southeast. By implication, that includes the estuary airport. Could the recent announcements on rail electrification be a way of "softening up" the Libdems?
The Conservatives made a major mistake when they reversed Labour's belated approval for LHR expansion, and they know it. They should have accepted it as a fait accompli.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jul 2012 at 16:36.
Thread Starter
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: L.A.
Age: 56
Posts: 579
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Frank:
No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.
No, the most densly populated countries in Europe are Belgium and the Netherlands, and probably Germany. The UK is densly populated in parts, but equally, huge swathes are empty.
You are wrong, yet again. Courtesy of Blair, who does not have to deal with the consequences, the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside).
Record levels of immigration lead to jam-packed England as population rockets to 56m | Mail Online
That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield. And saying we have empty spaces in Cornwall and Scotland is absurd - it is the southeast that needs the extra living space.
As to why we are not building houses in the estuary:
firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation.
secondly, the estuary has no jobs at present.
thirdly, every developer knows that the Greens will find a lesser-striped leach in the estuary somewhere, and the whole project will grind to a halt.
In order for this nation to progress, and house, feed and clothe itself, we need some swinging space for a few Greens.
.
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: solihull West Midlands
Posts: 967
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re third runway possibility..seems to me that the Govt has made its decision.
Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??
Think not !
Nigel
Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??
Think not !
Nigel
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "You are wrong, yet again. Courtesy of Blair, who does not have to deal with the consequences, the UK is now the most crowded nation in Europe (Malta aside)."
Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.
Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.
Was not too far off the mark as it happens: got UK and Germany the wrong way around and missed out Malta.
Either way it does not make the UK the most densely populated country in Europe.
Next.
Quote: "That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield."
What does this actually mean?
Quote: "And saying we have empty spaces in Cornwall and Scotland is absurd - it is the southeast that needs the extra living space."
Re-read the post, the points referred specifically to the UK, not to parts thereof. No, it is not "absurd" to mention vast empty swathes, more than just Cornwall and scotland incidentally, they are the reason why the UK is not the most densely populated country in Europe.
The fact is that the UK has a population imbalance and needs to move people and jobs away from the south east. Obviously easier said than done. That said, as densely populated as the south east undoubtedly is, there is still a great deal of open space there.
Even in the city of London there is much open space. Grab a right hand window seat on a westerly approach to LHR and this becomes apparent.
Quote: "firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation."
Have never mentioned "semi-detach", but what's wrong with them anyway? Clearly these are a very popular design of house and have been for many years.
Quote: "Re third runway possibility..seems to me that the Govt has made its decision.
Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??
Think not !"
Well said Nigel, it does appear to be the case doesn't it! Now they need to get on with it, sharpish.
Dear oh dear, you appear to be allowing your hatred of Blair cloud your judgement.
Malta: 3,424 people/sq mi.
Netherlands: 1,046 people/sq mi.
Belgium: 919 people/sq mi.
UK: 660 people/sq mi.
Germany: 593 people/sq mi.
Was not too far off the mark as it happens: got UK and Germany the wrong way around and missed out Malta.
Either way it does not make the UK the most densely populated country in Europe.
Next.
Quote: "That, is why we need to save space, especially for something as wasteful of space as an airfield."
What does this actually mean?
Quote: "And saying we have empty spaces in Cornwall and Scotland is absurd - it is the southeast that needs the extra living space."
Re-read the post, the points referred specifically to the UK, not to parts thereof. No, it is not "absurd" to mention vast empty swathes, more than just Cornwall and scotland incidentally, they are the reason why the UK is not the most densely populated country in Europe.
The fact is that the UK has a population imbalance and needs to move people and jobs away from the south east. Obviously easier said than done. That said, as densely populated as the south east undoubtedly is, there is still a great deal of open space there.
Even in the city of London there is much open space. Grab a right hand window seat on a westerly approach to LHR and this becomes apparent.
Quote: "firstly, you still have an obsession with the semi-detach, which is hugely wasteful of space, and therefore not economic for land reclamation."
Have never mentioned "semi-detach", but what's wrong with them anyway? Clearly these are a very popular design of house and have been for many years.
Quote: "Re third runway possibility..seems to me that the Govt has made its decision.
Would they really have approved a £500 million rail link from Wales and the Thames Valley to Heathrow yesterday to be ready in about 10 years if they were going for Boris Island ??
Think not !"
Well said Nigel, it does appear to be the case doesn't it! Now they need to get on with it, sharpish.
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jul 2012 at 21:47.
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: London (Babylon-on-Thames)
Age: 42
Posts: 6,168
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course they would, they only need to give the impression of doing something, the actual end result is secondary. It's not THEIR money they're spending but ours. I do not believe Cameron will allow a u-turn while he is PM in runway 3. He is too closely allied to the policy AND put Justine at Transport quite intentionally.
I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!
I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!
Last edited by Skipness One Echo; 17th Jul 2012 at 21:45.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Quote: "Of course they would, they only need to give the impression of doing something, the actual end result is secondary. It's not THEIR money they're spending but ours. I do not believe Cameron will allow a u-turn while he is PM in runway 3. He is too closely allied to the policy AND put Justine at Transport quite intentionally."
Possibly, but he is being overtaken by events. He may not have anticipated the pressure, not least from some of his colleagues. Much depends whether he is prepared to face down Clegg. On present and past form, it looks unlikely, which means at least another 3 years wasted.
Quote: I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!"
You may think that, couldn't possibly comment!
Possibly, but he is being overtaken by events. He may not have anticipated the pressure, not least from some of his colleagues. Much depends whether he is prepared to face down Clegg. On present and past form, it looks unlikely, which means at least another 3 years wasted.
Quote: I like the way Mr strata keeps saying "we" from his position in LA. From his spelling he's clearly American!"
You may think that, couldn't possibly comment!
Last edited by Fairdealfrank; 17th Jul 2012 at 21:56. Reason: clarity
Join Date: May 2012
Location: Hertfordshire
Posts: 215
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Govt backs £50bn of infrastructure loans
In related news, the Government is supposedly to announce today that it will back £50bn worth of infrastructure to get the economy moving and people back into work.
BBC News - Investment plan: Infrastructure and exports get backing
Which is all good news, but given that billions of pounds worth of infrastructure development at LHR (third and even fourth runway, terminal 6) just need political will to get it going seeing as the financing of it is not an issue, it cannot be more clear that money is indeed easier to come by than a positive political mandate!
BBC News - Investment plan: Infrastructure and exports get backing
Which is all good news, but given that billions of pounds worth of infrastructure development at LHR (third and even fourth runway, terminal 6) just need political will to get it going seeing as the financing of it is not an issue, it cannot be more clear that money is indeed easier to come by than a positive political mandate!