PDA

View Full Version : Airport expansion controversy


Dr Jekyll
22nd Oct 2016, 13:01
Some fascinating statistics about US noise complaints in this article.

https://iea.org.uk/the-never-ending-saga-of-airport-expansion/

Mostly Harmless
22nd Oct 2016, 15:46
Living near the airport and complaining about noise is like moving next to a rail road and complaining about the trains. You knew it was there before you bought the house. Move if you don't like it.

Mad Monk
22nd Oct 2016, 16:53
So many instances of people moving into the country for the peace and quiet, buying next to a farm and then complaining about the noise and smell.
Also those buying next to a pub, especially a music venue, then trying to close them down because of noise.

You knew it was there, just grow up.

G-CPTN
22nd Oct 2016, 17:06
In 1971 I bought a new-build house on an estate of perhaps 400 houses.
The land had been part of a pig farm that was still in occupation when the first of the houses were being built.
The sales agreement prohibited house-buyers from objecting to noise or smells from the farm and, also, prohibited the new residents from keeping pigs.

Sallyann1234
22nd Oct 2016, 17:11
Living near the airport and complaining about noise is like moving next to a rail road and complaining about the trains.
You are right of course.
But it's rather a different issue to be living near an airport, accepting the noise, and then find that your home is to be demolished to make way for an additional runway. I have a lot of sympathy for such people.

Mostly Harmless
22nd Oct 2016, 18:45
But it's rather a different issue to be living near an airport, accepting the noise, and then find that your home is to be demolished to make way for an additional runway.

You are correct, that is a completely different issue.

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Oct 2016, 20:15
You are correct, that is a completely different issue.
Only if you get ripped off on the price given for your property, if they give you fair market value for your home then you have certainly dodged a bullet on ever trying to sell up.

clark y
22nd Oct 2016, 20:41
Down here in Dunnunder, It seems that former governments were a lot more visionary. This has always evidenced in the local street directories (remember those) many years in advance. For as long as I can remember, the local "Melways" have always shown the future runways expansions at YMML. They also show many of the freeway and railway expansions.
Sydney has the Badgerys Creek airport issue. This has now been going on for what must be nearly 30 years.
Brisbane is finally getting its parallel runway. The airport was opened in about 1990. A second main runway was always on the master plan. Wait and see how much trouble that will cause when the noise shifts a bit to one side.
We get these issues, yet Australia has nowhere near the population pressure of much of the world.

As long are we keep jamming more people onto this planet, these problems will continue.

Sallyann1234
22nd Oct 2016, 21:03
To someone living in their family home for many years and surrounded by friends, being offered a fair market price or even a percentage above it, will be no compensation for having to move.

It may be necessary in the greater good, but I still have every sympathy with them.

Australia on course has much greater space to fit these things in. And no airspace issues with adjacent countries.

evansb
22nd Oct 2016, 21:15
"Airports must cease to expand. They must hire personal trainers to minimize their impact on humanity." Signed: Kanye West.

Seldomfitforpurpose
22nd Oct 2016, 22:05
To someone living in their family home for many years and surrounded by friends, being offered a fair market price or even a percentage above it, will be no compensation for having to move.

It may be necessary in the greater good, but I still have every sympathy with them.

Australia on course has much greater space to fit these things in. And no airspace issues with adjacent countries.

I also have sympathy but in the big scheme of things getting a tidy wedge for an otherwise unsellable property is a definite win situation.

ramble on
22nd Oct 2016, 22:30
The real estate agent said 'location location location' and there we were right next to the airport!

Dale Kerrigan - The Castle

Loose rivets
22nd Oct 2016, 22:48
and, also, prohibited the new residents from keeping pigs.


[email protected]@dy cheek! Whatever next. They'll have covenants saying you can't run a lunatic asylum or a whirligig, and even rendering tallow is forbidden. Oh, that's right, they already have - on my house in Frinton.



Promises, promises, to the people of Stansted. No, it's only going to be a little and very quiet airport. Have no fears, just the occasional plane for your kids to spot.

meadowrun
23rd Oct 2016, 01:56
To end the arguments about the new runway at either Heathrow or Gatwick, it has been suggested that both should get one.

radeng
23rd Oct 2016, 15:46
Now suppose the new airport was on Boris Island, and Heathrow, Gatwick, London City and Southend all closed down. I wonder how loud the screams would be about the effects on the local economies and even possibly a drop in house prices as so many people moved out of the area to work at 'the airport'.

Out Of Trim
23rd Oct 2016, 16:46
The most logical choice and least expensive, would be another runway at both Heathrow and Gatwick. Choosing just one runway would not provide enough extra capacity for the South East.

Gatwick is heaving now. At summer peak this year I think it was something like 958 movements in a day off of a single runway.

Air pollution would actually be reduced, due to less holding waiting to land or take off. Less waste of fuel etc. It would also be safer. When a runway is blocked by an emergency you need enough runways to take diversion traffic!

Building a new Boris island airport would not be big enough to replace Heathrow and Gatwick and the airlines would probably not want to move there. Not to mention the expense and infrastructure required.

Sallyann1234
23rd Oct 2016, 19:58
Boris Island was never a serious option.
But splitting the traffic between Heathrow and Gatwick would require excellent communications between the two. There is no direct rail link, and the M25 regularly grinds to a halt.

Gatwick could be developed much quicker than Heathrow - it practically has a second runway already.

It's an unenviable choice, whichever is chosen there will be huge complaints and objections.

Two's in
23rd Oct 2016, 20:59
Paris and Amsterdam airports continue to remain heartbroken by the UK Government's inability to make a decision about the future infrastructure needs of the country. When foreign visitors first impression of a country's wealth and commitment to its transport needs is gained when arriving at the airport, London is right up there with Dakar, Lagos and Kabul.

ramble on
23rd Oct 2016, 21:25
Since you start a list of distinguished shyte airports I would like to add all of the Australian capital city airports to that list please - Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane and Perth.

Birds nest building style - twig by twig.

Ascend Charlie
24th Oct 2016, 07:28
Go to Jakarta and look at Terminal 3, farkin huge, branding spanking new, and occupied only by 1 airline - Garuda - and it runs extremely efficiently. Our Oz airports could learn from this. Brisbane isn't doing too badly, apart from the tragic use of the airspace, and the second runway will help a lot.

Andy_S
24th Oct 2016, 08:14
When foreign visitors first impression of a country's wealth and commitment to its transport needs is gained when arriving at the airport, London is right up there with Dakar, Lagos and Kabul.

What a stupid and childish remark.

ImageGear
24th Oct 2016, 12:44
Just two options really, either keep your property and work at the Airport for convenience or rent your property and move somewhere quiet.

Don't live near the airport AND work in Central London. Death comes quickly from sleep deprivation over long periods of time.

I lived for 17 years directly under the end of the BNN radial for 09L/R and normal altitude for inbound traffic is around 4000'. I now live in the middle of a French coastal town and it's quieter.

Groundbased
24th Oct 2016, 13:20
Boris Island was never a serious option.
But splitting the traffic between Heathrow and Gatwick would require excellent communications between the two. There is no direct rail link, and the M25 regularly grinds to a halt.

Gatwick could be developed much quicker than Heathrow - it practically has a second runway already.

It's an unenviable choice, whichever is chosen there will be huge complaints and objections.
When you say "never a serious option" do you mean because of cost/timesale or some other reason?

To me building new in a scalable location is absolutely the way to go. If we had done it 20 years ago we wouldn't be bothered with Heathrow or Gatwick now. Seemed to work quite well for Hong Kong and I'm sure there are other examples.

What is the view here on the Heathrow hub proposals to extend runway in both directions and offer take off and landing from the same runway simultaneously? Apparently this will require less compulsory purchase and be quicker.

Sallyann1234
24th Oct 2016, 13:49
When you say "never a serious option" do you mean because of cost/timesale or some other reason?You'll get better qualified answers from others on here, but I understand that cost and timescale were both factors, plus airspace difficulties with the continent. Then there were problems with wildlife, and the sunken munitions ship. Not to mention lobbying from Heathrow!

If a completely new site was on the cards, the Goodwin Sands was another option. It could accommodate multiple runways with 24 hour operation. But you'd need to include a new fast link back to London. Kent residents would have a field day with that plan.

Andy_S
24th Oct 2016, 14:40
Putting aside financial, political, environmental and timescale difficulties, it seems self-evident that a purpose built (or expanded) airport is the way to go. The one thing that (with considerable reluctance) leads me to believe that Heathrow is the only game in town is the economy that has sprung up around it. There are the thousands of people who work there – what will happen to them? Will they be laid off? Forced to relocate? Or made to undertake a long commute every day? And then there’s the secondary businesses which serve LHR – the hotels, the transport, the catering, the freight. Will they just be abandoned? Finally, there are the non-aviation businesses which have developed around the M4 corridor due to LHR’s proximity. Suddenly their location won’t be as attractive. And as I said, that’s without considering costs, political objections etc……

dsc810
24th Oct 2016, 15:45
The other problem is that we all know that IF Heathrow ever gets a third runway - the next day after it opens a campaign will start for a fourth runway........
After all remember the promised when T5 was built with BAA in 1999 saying at the planning stage something to the effect that the approval for T5 should be made and it should include an agreement ruling out a 3rd runway forever.

I have a suspicion that even if a 3rd is given the go ahead, in reality it may never actually be built.

radeng
24th Oct 2016, 15:56
Whatever decision the government makes, there will be many who consider it to be the wrong one!

racedo
25th Oct 2016, 10:55
Mate lives close to Gatwick and said Estate Agent friend when quizzed on potential new runway said................. Oh we have 2 marketing strategies, House close to Gatwick with new runway being built or House close to Gatwick with no runway expansion. Seems agents will lift prices by couple of % either way due to potential.

MoateAir
25th Oct 2016, 11:04
Third runway at Heathrow gets green light in 'truly momentous' move (http://www.msn.com/en-gb/news/uknews/third-runway-at-heathrow-gets-green-light-in-truly-momentous-move/ar-AAjmAnH?li=BBoPWjQ&ocid=iehp)

Heathrow it is then.....

ExXB
25th Oct 2016, 12:25
To open in 2025, unless it doesn't.

Sallyann1234
25th Oct 2016, 13:30
After all the court cases and judicial reviews, plus the inevitable construction delays?
More like 2030.

racedo
25th Oct 2016, 17:03
After all the court cases and judicial reviews, plus the inevitable construction delays?
More like 2030.

You mean 2033 when its not required.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Oct 2016, 18:46
I am 59 this year and I doubt very much I will ever see it happen.

ExRAFRadar
25th Oct 2016, 19:17
Never see it happen?
It's laying a bit of tarmac, clever people sort out the patterns the People Tubes have to fly and increase the travel options to and from the airport.
It cant be that bloody hard for God's sake.
And if it is then go and build a new airport somewhere else.

Seldomfitforpurpose
25th Oct 2016, 19:21
Nope it will be MIMBY'd to death and will never get built. Even the Gatwick option would have been fought tooth and nail by the usual suspects so sadly neither option is ever going to be built.

Sallyann1234
26th Oct 2016, 09:29
It's laying a bit of tarmac
:D :D :D

We've been misled then!

All that business about demolishing villages, constructing an underground motorway and building new rail links was just a ploy dreamed up by the Gatwick lobby.

Thanks for sorting that for us. :ok:

ORAC
26th Oct 2016, 09:52
Latest plan is to put the runway on a bridge over the M25, same as at CDG, AMS etc etc


http://www.globalconstructionreview.com/news/new-heathrow-runway-could-b7e-bri7dge-ov7er/

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com/236x/c4/2d/b0/c42db0e1c58a5f05724c914b9c755ee9.jpg