MANCHESTER - 9
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed,
What was so insensitive about MAN777's comment?
I found it a legitimate example that out of thousands upon thousands of movements, there has only been that 1 incident that occurred within the last very few seconds of landing at MAN.
At the end of the day, an air crash is not going to be pretty wherever it happens. As you rightly point out, a minute or 2 earlier and the aircraft will come down on Stockport. What's worse for fatalities, a housing estate or a car park? Given this too has happened at MAN, should a large swathe of housing under the final approach at MAN be wiped 'just incase'? Without wishing to sound distasteful, an air crash into a field is still likely to cause a he'll of an explosion, 9000 cars or not, an explosion of any scale can be catastrophic.
As I've pointed out, there are many cases of car parks amongst the landing lights of airports, LHR and LGW are UK examples, San Diego even has a multi storey plonked at the end of its runway!
As others have said, I'm sure all the H&S bodies have taken all into account, and in the UK's very stringent H&S world, I'm sure it was checked and double checked.
What was so insensitive about MAN777's comment?
I found it a legitimate example that out of thousands upon thousands of movements, there has only been that 1 incident that occurred within the last very few seconds of landing at MAN.
At the end of the day, an air crash is not going to be pretty wherever it happens. As you rightly point out, a minute or 2 earlier and the aircraft will come down on Stockport. What's worse for fatalities, a housing estate or a car park? Given this too has happened at MAN, should a large swathe of housing under the final approach at MAN be wiped 'just incase'? Without wishing to sound distasteful, an air crash into a field is still likely to cause a he'll of an explosion, 9000 cars or not, an explosion of any scale can be catastrophic.
As I've pointed out, there are many cases of car parks amongst the landing lights of airports, LHR and LGW are UK examples, San Diego even has a multi storey plonked at the end of its runway!
As others have said, I'm sure all the H&S bodies have taken all into account, and in the UK's very stringent H&S world, I'm sure it was checked and double checked.
The plan to store more than 250,000 litres of mixed petrol/diesel in a 'public safety zone', (i.e. the 05L clearway) is not a good scheme. If anything were to hit this site, (e.g. an item detached during a gear-retraction sequence), the resulting chain-reaction would probably be spectacular and un-stoppable.
Viscount Crash.
Bit of an over reaction there Shed. The 'risk' was the subject matter, not the relevance of a tragedy.
Be well.
Last edited by TURIN; 26th Oct 2013 at 20:13.
Join Date: Jul 2003
Location: Manchester
Posts: 891
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Shed
I wasnt trying to dismiss any previous accidents, I was just talking probability.
Also can I ask that you take a look on google earth and check out the extended runway centreline. You will note exactly what I described. OK the exact centreline might just be offset from the gable end but only by a few yards. The houses are easily within the wingspan of the average airliner.
I wasnt trying to dismiss any previous accidents, I was just talking probability.
Also can I ask that you take a look on google earth and check out the extended runway centreline. You will note exactly what I described. OK the exact centreline might just be offset from the gable end but only by a few yards. The houses are easily within the wingspan of the average airliner.
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX_LHR ... Nowhere do I suggest 'wiping' large swathes of existing housing from anywhere. Where did that idea come from? However, that doesn't make it a great idea to stick high-density car parking on fields in the undershoot of an intensively used runway (which is a different issue altogether). The issue here is not whether it is better to impact onto housing or parked cars, but whether it is better to impact onto densely parked cars or open farmland in the event of an accident. As you say, I'm sure H&S boxes have been ticked, but expedient saving on construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance. And certainly no consideration has been given to environmental consequences. A large multi-storey car park integrated with Airport City would not have cost mega-bucks in the context of major airport expenditure.
MAN777 ... I accept your comment that you were not being dismissive. No personal offence is intended. One factual correction though: the block of houses which was aligned with the runway threshold was demolished relatively recently. The first block of remaining houses to the east of Shadow Moss Road is offset to the right of the approach (with the runway threshold at your back). They are certainly close to the runway but not in line with it.
Speaking generally (not to anybody in particular), the mindset that boxes have been ticked so we can all be complacent now is not commensurate with the safety culture that a major airport deserves. Yes, there have been thousands upon thousands of safe movements at MAN. But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for complacency if we want our good run to continue. The safety record needs to be proactively earned by implementing best practice, not entrusted to chance and casino odds. We should not work down to the lowest common denominator in this industry (well airport XXX has a car park in a dodgy spot so it must be OK for us too).
MAN777 ... I accept your comment that you were not being dismissive. No personal offence is intended. One factual correction though: the block of houses which was aligned with the runway threshold was demolished relatively recently. The first block of remaining houses to the east of Shadow Moss Road is offset to the right of the approach (with the runway threshold at your back). They are certainly close to the runway but not in line with it.
Speaking generally (not to anybody in particular), the mindset that boxes have been ticked so we can all be complacent now is not commensurate with the safety culture that a major airport deserves. Yes, there have been thousands upon thousands of safe movements at MAN. But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for complacency if we want our good run to continue. The safety record needs to be proactively earned by implementing best practice, not entrusted to chance and casino odds. We should not work down to the lowest common denominator in this industry (well airport XXX has a car park in a dodgy spot so it must be OK for us too).
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nowhere do I suggest 'wiping' large swathes of existing housing from
anywhere. Where did that idea come from
anywhere. Where did that idea come from
As you say, I'm sure H&S boxes have been ticked, but expedient saving on
construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance
construction costs is clearly triumphant over real-world safety precautions in this instance
But it only takes one slip to break that cycle so there is no room for
complacency if we want our good run to continue
complacency if we want our good run to continue
Look, you obviously feel very strongly that this car park is somehow unsafe and that some sort of 'carmageddon' will ensue in a crash. You talk about 'real world' situations but the real world situation is that the proverbial will hit the fan regardless of where an airliner crashes. Fields or cars, I would not like to be on any airliner that crashes (obviously) and I can honestly say that I do not feel any worry knowing I am landing over a car park.
At the end of the day, if you feel strongly that green space has been lost, that is one argument, but, Im not sure where this fear of aircraft crashing into cars has stemmed from. As pointed out, car parks in these locations is a practice taken at many airports and it all seems to run smoothly elsewhere, and with only 1 incident of an aircraft landing short at MAN, then I think the residents of South Manchester have no more need to worry than they usually do.....
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
LAX_LHR ... We must agree to differ. A multi-storey car park located in a development such as Airport City which is not under the approach is clearly safer than a surface car park development in the undershoot of the final approach to a busy runway. None of us want to dwell upon the possibility of an aircraft accident occurring, but the survival odds are much better if the point of contact with the ground is green pasture land rather than a high density car park. This proposed car park undoubtedly satisfies the letter of the law (as it must), but it is a significantly less safe option than the viable alternative which objectors put forward for consideration. The difference between the two is that a multi-storey costs more money to construct.
I could continue onto the invisible costs of environmental destruction and the cost of writing off the 'Good Neighbour' legacy, but these are additional factors which have been discussed earlier in the thread and there is no point going around in circles.
As for you comment that "Huh? A crash is a crash" ... well, I'm amazed that someone in the industry could glibly come out with this. There are all manner of innovations which have been introduced to improve the "survivability" of aircraft accidents. This is very much a holy grail within the industry and rightly so. The surface upon which an impact occurs is a significant factor in aircraft accident survivability. With the benefits of a robust safety culture being applied, aircraft accidents can be considerably less bad than the worst case scenario. Eroding that safety margin away in the name of expediency and (relatively) modest cost savings is not the way to go.
I have never mentioned "carmaggedon" ... that colourful word is your own. I am not into Hollywood theatrics when discussing a safety case. However, it is certainly reasonable to point out the survivability of one surface versus another in a discussion of this nature. I do not argue that an aircraft accident *will* happen, but I acknowledge that it *could*. The aviation industry must always be mindful of accident prevention and mitigation. The lessons learned and innovations applied from accident investigations worldwide have saved thousands of lives. It is wise to value the contribution made by a robust safety culture and not just sidestep it when convenient to save afew pounds on construction costs. And remember, aviation safety best practices are derived from worldwide data, so "it's never happened before at Manchester" doesn't really cut it in this context.
By the way, I did not initiate the discussion on the safety aspect of Manchester's 9000 space car park application. Read my post #1340 on this thread and you will note that I introduced the car park news with a quite different discussion emphasis. However, I have since seen contributors here dismissing safety concerns raised by other posters. That, to me, is something worthy of a rebuttal posting. We must never allow our complacency to shunt aside the safety culture which is so vital to this industry. It is deserving of our attention and respect.
Best to all. SHED.
I could continue onto the invisible costs of environmental destruction and the cost of writing off the 'Good Neighbour' legacy, but these are additional factors which have been discussed earlier in the thread and there is no point going around in circles.
As for you comment that "Huh? A crash is a crash" ... well, I'm amazed that someone in the industry could glibly come out with this. There are all manner of innovations which have been introduced to improve the "survivability" of aircraft accidents. This is very much a holy grail within the industry and rightly so. The surface upon which an impact occurs is a significant factor in aircraft accident survivability. With the benefits of a robust safety culture being applied, aircraft accidents can be considerably less bad than the worst case scenario. Eroding that safety margin away in the name of expediency and (relatively) modest cost savings is not the way to go.
I have never mentioned "carmaggedon" ... that colourful word is your own. I am not into Hollywood theatrics when discussing a safety case. However, it is certainly reasonable to point out the survivability of one surface versus another in a discussion of this nature. I do not argue that an aircraft accident *will* happen, but I acknowledge that it *could*. The aviation industry must always be mindful of accident prevention and mitigation. The lessons learned and innovations applied from accident investigations worldwide have saved thousands of lives. It is wise to value the contribution made by a robust safety culture and not just sidestep it when convenient to save afew pounds on construction costs. And remember, aviation safety best practices are derived from worldwide data, so "it's never happened before at Manchester" doesn't really cut it in this context.
By the way, I did not initiate the discussion on the safety aspect of Manchester's 9000 space car park application. Read my post #1340 on this thread and you will note that I introduced the car park news with a quite different discussion emphasis. However, I have since seen contributors here dismissing safety concerns raised by other posters. That, to me, is something worthy of a rebuttal posting. We must never allow our complacency to shunt aside the safety culture which is so vital to this industry. It is deserving of our attention and respect.
Best to all. SHED.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 27th Oct 2013 at 02:53.
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: London
Posts: 2,962
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
It does indeed seem we will have to 'agree to disagree' as I just cannot even begin to understand why you view this development as unsafe.
At the end of the day if you are p**sed iff that green space is now going to be concrete, then fine, thats an argument in itself (although prime development land next to a growing airport, I must ask did you honestly think it would remain 'green' for long?).
However this whole 'car park danger' in the clear zone to me is making a kountain out of a molehill and blown way out of proportion in reality.
At the end of the day if you are p**sed iff that green space is now going to be concrete, then fine, thats an argument in itself (although prime development land next to a growing airport, I must ask did you honestly think it would remain 'green' for long?).
However this whole 'car park danger' in the clear zone to me is making a kountain out of a molehill and blown way out of proportion in reality.
Aside from incorporating a new multi storey within airport city, the airport own & operate many car parks around the airport. Almost any of these could be converted into multi storey parks.
The advantages of doing this are three fold, 1) less environmental damage concreting over green fields, 2) remaining a good neighbour to local residents & 3) retain a safer clear area under the flight path.
The airport appears to have chosen the cheapest & most disruptive option.
The residents have seen the airport grow & unlike Heathrow, have movements H24, then they got the train,now the trams will soon be thundering past their houses & now a 9,000 space car park on their doorstep. It was an avoidable decision, when there are clearly alternatives available with no detriment to the airport expansion.
The advantages of doing this are three fold, 1) less environmental damage concreting over green fields, 2) remaining a good neighbour to local residents & 3) retain a safer clear area under the flight path.
The airport appears to have chosen the cheapest & most disruptive option.
The residents have seen the airport grow & unlike Heathrow, have movements H24, then they got the train,now the trams will soon be thundering past their houses & now a 9,000 space car park on their doorstep. It was an avoidable decision, when there are clearly alternatives available with no detriment to the airport expansion.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I wonder if this not so much the cheapest decision (hmmmm) as opposed to the quickest ...?
By building at "Staff East" you could effectively move the surface car park behind T3 pretty quickly this would allow construction of a new apron round the back of T3.
"IF" it was large enough to accommodate the capacity of staff west as well as the current T2 apron parking it would allow them to reoccupy the space for aircraft as well as provide a possible extension of the T2 apron Westwards
assuming this does not conflict with the boundary of airport city?
Much as MAG are trying to promote expansion in Essex maybe their is a gnawing dare I say reluctant realisation that they NEED to look after the airport that was the catalyst to buy STN in the first place !
By building at "Staff East" you could effectively move the surface car park behind T3 pretty quickly this would allow construction of a new apron round the back of T3.
"IF" it was large enough to accommodate the capacity of staff west as well as the current T2 apron parking it would allow them to reoccupy the space for aircraft as well as provide a possible extension of the T2 apron Westwards
assuming this does not conflict with the boundary of airport city?
Much as MAG are trying to promote expansion in Essex maybe their is a gnawing dare I say reluctant realisation that they NEED to look after the airport that was the catalyst to buy STN in the first place !
Last edited by Bagso; 27th Oct 2013 at 09:26.
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: South of MAN, North of BHX, and well clear of Stoke ;-)
Posts: 487
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I find it ironic on the various web forums that some of the very same voices who were so vocally supportive of runway 2 and dismissive of the fears of the residents' of Mobberley and Knutsford are now the ones so vociferously opposed to the loss of one far less significant plot of green land with a few manky sheep on it that just happens this time to be in their own back yard.
Geographical NIMBYism at its very best.
Geographical NIMBYism at its very best.
Hmmmmm fair point..........oh hang on, you can't build double decker runways....but I'm sure Ive seen multi storey car parks, that uses space more efficiently. Anyway, they are doing it now....so maybe let sleeping car parks lie.
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: uk
Posts: 1,578
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair the residents of Mobberley and Knutsford have the single nuisance of aircraft......
If you live near the Tatton,
you have the planes
the train,
the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......
the metrolink
and now a 24 hour car park
...I think I would move !
If you live near the Tatton,
you have the planes
the train,
the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......
the metrolink
and now a 24 hour car park
...I think I would move !
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Manchester
Posts: 1,106
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
On 'Geographical NIMBYism at its very best' ...
Stoneybridge -
Permit me to address the point you raise, as I suspect that I may be amongst those you note as being supportive of some airport development projects and opposed to others (well, one other). In a nutshell, this is a consequence of assessing each project on its own merits. There is no "one size fits all" formula for evaluating the very varied developments which Manchester Airport wishes to pursue. And it is not a matter of inconsistency or disloyalty to take a different stance when evaluating multiple individual developments which are very varied in nature.
Firstly, let me explain my own position with respect to 'Runway 2' [23L/05R]. Those who know me could confirm that I am very directly affected by aircraft movements using this runway, arguably at least as much as anybody anywhere in the vicinity of the airport. I knew well that this would be the case when I joined and actively supported campaigning by the 'Runway 2 Support Group'. And if I had my time over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Even recalling the night when a landing aircraft on 23L (during 23R maintenance) whipped a bunch of tiles off my roof!
The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region. Airlines primarily require scarce peak time slots to enable services which dovetail with the 9 to 5 standard business day. And companies which base aircraft at the airport - for all market segments - require access to runway capacity at peak times as well as during the shoulder and off-peak periods. R2 has enabled this demand to be satisfied, and the effects in terms of employment and economic value to the North West is clearly evident. Confident that this would be the dividend of the R2 investment, I strongly supported it from the outset despite personally being very directly affected by aircraft using it. So perhaps you would have to call me an 'OKIMBY' on this one because R2 is certainly 'IMBY'! Well, 'IMFY' anyway!
Furthermore, I have strongly supported terminal expansions as required during all the years of my residency in this area. Yes, they are 'IMBY', and yes, they add to congestion on the roads hereabouts etc, etc. But the economic payoff to the region vastly outweighs the downside in each of these cases. If MAG can secure funding to extend T2 and T3, and / or rebuild / modernise T1, they will have my full support in their endeavours. (Whether they would actually prefer to throw their investment kitty at STN is another matter). These terminals are very much 'IMBY', especially the long-term proposals for extending T3. So I guess this makes me an 'OKIMBY' on terminal expansion as well.
The Metrolink extension also runs nearby and the current works are a short distance from my property. However, I have supported this project because construction works are temporary and the long-term benefits of this amenity will be a big positive for years to come. I support increased use of public transport, and initiatives to persuade users of Manchester Airport to avail themselves of it. I myself expect to become a regular user of the airport tram route, as indeed I am a regular user of several of the existing lines. So I'm an 'OKIMBY' on this development too.
A major by-pass [SEMMMS] which will link Manchester Airport with points east is also working its way through the planning process. As the project passes very close to my property, I have received solicitations from law firms to sign up for a compensation suit against the developers. I have not taken them up on their offer, as I believe that the by-pass will be a huge enhancement to the area once completed. The disruption of the construction phase will be worthwhile in the long run. The economic benefits to the wider region are again clearly evident. Believing this, I consider it disingenuous to profiteer from compensation which may become available because of the project's 'detrimental effects'. So you'd better put me down on the 'OKIMBY' list for this one as well.
I am also fully supportive of developments including Airport City (major economic boost for the region) which is just about close enough to pass as 'IMBY'. Extensions to the cargo village are perhaps a little distant to qualify as 'IMBY', but I support this expansion also. Taxiway upgrade initiatives are fine by me too. Oh, and I regard HS2 as a good thing as well!
So what is the big difference when it comes down to the 9000 space car park development on working farmland? Well, firstly, there is a very viable and significantly preferable alternative which would achieve the same outcome. I refer to the proposal for 'Deep 'n High' multi-storey car parking provision constructed in association with the 'Airport City' project. Will the farmland car park proposal create more employment than centrally located multi-storey(s)? Will it be more beneficial to passengers? Will it deliver a huge economic benefit to the North West region? Will whatever benefits the project does deliver enhance the NW over and above the multi-storey alternative? I put it to you that the answer to all these questions is a resounding 'NO'.
The negative aspects of the car park proposal have been widely discussed in earlier posts here, but they can be summarised in terms of environmental damage, significant loss of local amenity, loss of 'green lung' land, erosion of safety margins, loss of trust and historic cooperation with the airport's neighbouring residential community.
Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep. There are exceptions of course, as there would be in any community, but it is fair to say that many around here are fine with aircraft activity and its essential supporting infrastructure. Many airport workers and aircraft enthusiasts live locally. However, it is quite unfair to expect this community to meekly welcome just any development the airport wants to pursue, regardless of the specifics of the application. The 9000 space car park plan fails the 'good sense test' on so many levels (apologies for the pun). The economic case for it as opposed to a central multi-storey alternative is not only not compelling ... it just isn't there at all!
So it is quite unfair to accuse the airport's neighbours of "geographical NIMBYism at its very best". The opposite is true. This is very selective and very well reasoned NIMBYism against a specific project which spectacularly fails the smell test. Manchester Airport is in fact very fortunate to have enjoyed such a supportive community to the east of its boundary. I wonder if the airport's current management team have any appreciation of the long-term goodwill they have written off with this recent decision? I suppose not, but they may find they have prodded a hornets' nest this time. The local community has vocal and angry opponents prepared to organise now. They feel betrayed. Every development the airport pursues from this point on will face much tougher opposition going forward.
And that saddens me. It didn't have to be like this. The residents have lost all confidence in the management team now running Manchester Airport. The goodwill - taken for granted for so long - is exhausted.
By the way Stoneybridge, you're another one calling out our "manky" sheep. Are you a vet? Is there a whole bunch of vets reading this board? Those sheep are perfectly healthy. Nowt wrong with 'em. I bet they'd taste great with a nice dash of mint sauce.
SHED.
Permit me to address the point you raise, as I suspect that I may be amongst those you note as being supportive of some airport development projects and opposed to others (well, one other). In a nutshell, this is a consequence of assessing each project on its own merits. There is no "one size fits all" formula for evaluating the very varied developments which Manchester Airport wishes to pursue. And it is not a matter of inconsistency or disloyalty to take a different stance when evaluating multiple individual developments which are very varied in nature.
Firstly, let me explain my own position with respect to 'Runway 2' [23L/05R]. Those who know me could confirm that I am very directly affected by aircraft movements using this runway, arguably at least as much as anybody anywhere in the vicinity of the airport. I knew well that this would be the case when I joined and actively supported campaigning by the 'Runway 2 Support Group'. And if I had my time over again, I wouldn't change a thing. Even recalling the night when a landing aircraft on 23L (during 23R maintenance) whipped a bunch of tiles off my roof!
The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region. Airlines primarily require scarce peak time slots to enable services which dovetail with the 9 to 5 standard business day. And companies which base aircraft at the airport - for all market segments - require access to runway capacity at peak times as well as during the shoulder and off-peak periods. R2 has enabled this demand to be satisfied, and the effects in terms of employment and economic value to the North West is clearly evident. Confident that this would be the dividend of the R2 investment, I strongly supported it from the outset despite personally being very directly affected by aircraft using it. So perhaps you would have to call me an 'OKIMBY' on this one because R2 is certainly 'IMBY'! Well, 'IMFY' anyway!
Furthermore, I have strongly supported terminal expansions as required during all the years of my residency in this area. Yes, they are 'IMBY', and yes, they add to congestion on the roads hereabouts etc, etc. But the economic payoff to the region vastly outweighs the downside in each of these cases. If MAG can secure funding to extend T2 and T3, and / or rebuild / modernise T1, they will have my full support in their endeavours. (Whether they would actually prefer to throw their investment kitty at STN is another matter). These terminals are very much 'IMBY', especially the long-term proposals for extending T3. So I guess this makes me an 'OKIMBY' on terminal expansion as well.
The Metrolink extension also runs nearby and the current works are a short distance from my property. However, I have supported this project because construction works are temporary and the long-term benefits of this amenity will be a big positive for years to come. I support increased use of public transport, and initiatives to persuade users of Manchester Airport to avail themselves of it. I myself expect to become a regular user of the airport tram route, as indeed I am a regular user of several of the existing lines. So I'm an 'OKIMBY' on this development too.
A major by-pass [SEMMMS] which will link Manchester Airport with points east is also working its way through the planning process. As the project passes very close to my property, I have received solicitations from law firms to sign up for a compensation suit against the developers. I have not taken them up on their offer, as I believe that the by-pass will be a huge enhancement to the area once completed. The disruption of the construction phase will be worthwhile in the long run. The economic benefits to the wider region are again clearly evident. Believing this, I consider it disingenuous to profiteer from compensation which may become available because of the project's 'detrimental effects'. So you'd better put me down on the 'OKIMBY' list for this one as well.
I am also fully supportive of developments including Airport City (major economic boost for the region) which is just about close enough to pass as 'IMBY'. Extensions to the cargo village are perhaps a little distant to qualify as 'IMBY', but I support this expansion also. Taxiway upgrade initiatives are fine by me too. Oh, and I regard HS2 as a good thing as well!
So what is the big difference when it comes down to the 9000 space car park development on working farmland? Well, firstly, there is a very viable and significantly preferable alternative which would achieve the same outcome. I refer to the proposal for 'Deep 'n High' multi-storey car parking provision constructed in association with the 'Airport City' project. Will the farmland car park proposal create more employment than centrally located multi-storey(s)? Will it be more beneficial to passengers? Will it deliver a huge economic benefit to the North West region? Will whatever benefits the project does deliver enhance the NW over and above the multi-storey alternative? I put it to you that the answer to all these questions is a resounding 'NO'.
The negative aspects of the car park proposal have been widely discussed in earlier posts here, but they can be summarised in terms of environmental damage, significant loss of local amenity, loss of 'green lung' land, erosion of safety margins, loss of trust and historic cooperation with the airport's neighbouring residential community.
Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep. There are exceptions of course, as there would be in any community, but it is fair to say that many around here are fine with aircraft activity and its essential supporting infrastructure. Many airport workers and aircraft enthusiasts live locally. However, it is quite unfair to expect this community to meekly welcome just any development the airport wants to pursue, regardless of the specifics of the application. The 9000 space car park plan fails the 'good sense test' on so many levels (apologies for the pun). The economic case for it as opposed to a central multi-storey alternative is not only not compelling ... it just isn't there at all!
So it is quite unfair to accuse the airport's neighbours of "geographical NIMBYism at its very best". The opposite is true. This is very selective and very well reasoned NIMBYism against a specific project which spectacularly fails the smell test. Manchester Airport is in fact very fortunate to have enjoyed such a supportive community to the east of its boundary. I wonder if the airport's current management team have any appreciation of the long-term goodwill they have written off with this recent decision? I suppose not, but they may find they have prodded a hornets' nest this time. The local community has vocal and angry opponents prepared to organise now. They feel betrayed. Every development the airport pursues from this point on will face much tougher opposition going forward.
And that saddens me. It didn't have to be like this. The residents have lost all confidence in the management team now running Manchester Airport. The goodwill - taken for granted for so long - is exhausted.
By the way Stoneybridge, you're another one calling out our "manky" sheep. Are you a vet? Is there a whole bunch of vets reading this board? Those sheep are perfectly healthy. Nowt wrong with 'em. I bet they'd taste great with a nice dash of mint sauce.
SHED.
Last edited by Shed-on-a-Pole; 27th Oct 2013 at 15:04.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
A very good post Shed.
Has anyone considered the security element of this site? It is remote from the airport's GMP headquarters, and, although it will doubtless be be well fenced and covered by a plethora of CCTV cameras, is adjacent to what is, unfortunately, one of the area's 'crime-hotspots'. Not an ideal place to put upwards of £27,000,000 of personal property.
Has anyone considered the security element of this site? It is remote from the airport's GMP headquarters, and, although it will doubtless be be well fenced and covered by a plethora of CCTV cameras, is adjacent to what is, unfortunately, one of the area's 'crime-hotspots'. Not an ideal place to put upwards of £27,000,000 of personal property.
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: The foot of Mt. Belzoni.
Posts: 2,001
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Also, everyone these days is red hot on reducing CO2, including Local councils, MAG and NATS. The small "green-lung" present on this site today does its bit, (albeit small), to offset the inevitable CO2 generated by the 'environmentally-friendly' airport's operation. This car-park development will do the opposite.
Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Oslo, Norway
Age: 63
Posts: 500
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you think of carbon foootprint ZOOKER, then you need to look in to move people over to public transport. Close to 16 million passengers at MAN used private transport to/from the airport according to the CAA 2012 survey. In addition to this you have the MAN workers carbon footprint from their daily private commute.
If we look at only the passenger CO2 emmision from their private transport, we are talking many 10,000s on tonnes CO2 - so let's start calculate. The survey says the average travel group size at MAN is 2.1 passengers, so let us say they come together to the airport. An average car today emits around 200 g CO2 per km. A low estimate of how far the passengers are traveling to get to the airport would be 30 km (based on the same survey), but let's use it for this calculation.
16 million passengers / 2.1 passengers x 30 km x 200 g CO2 per km = 45,714 tonnes CO2
If we so convert this to jetfuel, this equals to 18.1 million litres or if we think of aircraft this equals to filling 56 empty Airbus A380 to the rim with jetfuel (fuel capacity for an Airbus A380 is 323,546 litres).
This is a low estimate since the same survey also say a share are driven to the airport (wave off) and then we are talking double distance. The wave off share is around 8%. Had MAN had the same public transport share as another MAG airport, STN, the CO2 emission from private passenger transport been 57.9% of what it was in 2012. That would have saved a lot of green area around MAN - and the sheep could have continued to eat the grass north of the Ringway Road.
If we look at only the passenger CO2 emmision from their private transport, we are talking many 10,000s on tonnes CO2 - so let's start calculate. The survey says the average travel group size at MAN is 2.1 passengers, so let us say they come together to the airport. An average car today emits around 200 g CO2 per km. A low estimate of how far the passengers are traveling to get to the airport would be 30 km (based on the same survey), but let's use it for this calculation.
16 million passengers / 2.1 passengers x 30 km x 200 g CO2 per km = 45,714 tonnes CO2
If we so convert this to jetfuel, this equals to 18.1 million litres or if we think of aircraft this equals to filling 56 empty Airbus A380 to the rim with jetfuel (fuel capacity for an Airbus A380 is 323,546 litres).
This is a low estimate since the same survey also say a share are driven to the airport (wave off) and then we are talking double distance. The wave off share is around 8%. Had MAN had the same public transport share as another MAG airport, STN, the CO2 emission from private passenger transport been 57.9% of what it was in 2012. That would have saved a lot of green area around MAN - and the sheep could have continued to eat the grass north of the Ringway Road.
Join Date: Dec 2011
Location: Middlesex (under the flightpath)
Posts: 1,946
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
To be fair the residents of Mobberley and Knutsford have the single nuisance of aircraft......
If you live near the Tatton,
you have the planes
the train,
the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......
the metrolink
and now a 24 hour car park
...I think I would move !
If you live near the Tatton,
you have the planes
the train,
the new A6 relief road which will be a dual carrieway......
the metrolink
and now a 24 hour car park
...I think I would move !
The reason that I supported the R2 development is because the economic case for it was compelling. Whilst the project to this day remains widely misunderstood by the public (and some on here) because it is not fully utilised 24/7, the fact is that R2 has brought huge economic benefits to the region.
Broadly speaking, the communities at the Heald Green / Wythenshawe end of the runways have been supportive of the airport on their doorstep.
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: England
Posts: 112
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
.... it can only be AA to Miami....
We used to use the DFW service for a pleasant way to get to South Houston / Galveston / Texas City area for a contract down there at the time. The contrast of an AA 767 to an American Eagle puddle jumper was 'fun' but at least it took us into Hobby Airport at Houston rather than George Bush.