PDA

View Full Version : Third Runway at Heathrow gets Go Ahead


robbieduncan
Jan 15, 2009, 06:56 AM
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

Prepare for years of protests, arguments and delays...

BoyBach
Jan 15, 2009, 06:59 AM
Prepare for years of protests, arguments and delays...


Here's hoping.

robbieduncan
Jan 15, 2009, 07:02 AM
Here's hoping.

Personally I'm somewhat undecided. Perhaps we need the runway. Perhaps not. Maybe expanding Gatwick would be better. Maybe scrapping Heathrow entirely and building a new, modern airport in Thames Estuary would be better (although as Heathrow already exists the environment cost of this would appear to be huge).

Maybe we should build high-speed rail links instead...

The options are numerous. They have all been weighed up and this is the one chosen...

Queso
Jan 15, 2009, 07:02 AM
Not surprising in the slightest. What big business wants, big business gets.

And the people that live where this thing is going to go? Well, they can just be forcibly moved can't they?

Maybe we should build high-speed rail links instead...
My preferred option. Anyone who uses the Eurostar would probably agree.

dalvin200
Jan 15, 2009, 07:03 AM
Maybe we should build high-speed rail links instead...


maybe pigs will fly... :p

robbieduncan
Jan 15, 2009, 07:06 AM
My preferred option. Anyone who uses the Eurostar would probably agree.

In some ways mine too, at least for travel within the UK and near-European destinations, but the cost of building and then running them is huge. The TGV network in France only survives due to huge government subsidy...

dalvin200
Jan 15, 2009, 07:08 AM
In some ways mine too, at least for travel within the UK and near-European destinations, but the cost of building and then running them is huge. The TGV network in France only survives due to huge government subsidy...

could you imagine it though? our rail networks are pretty crap and the prices we pay are crazy (most times)...
if somehow high speed rail was achieved.. who could afford to use it?

robbieduncan
Jan 15, 2009, 07:11 AM
could you imagine it though? our rail networks are pretty crap and the prices we pay are crazy (most times)...
if somehow high speed rail was achieved.. who could afford to use it?

That is largely the problem isn't it. If I want to go to Aberdeen from London it's often cheaper to fly than take the train. And it only takes a couple of hours to fly...

Queso
Jan 15, 2009, 07:13 AM
That is largely the problem isn't it. If I want to go to Aberdeen from London it's often cheaper to fly than take the train. And it only takes a couple of hours to fly...
It takes longer once you factor in extended journey times to and from airports, check in time etc. With rail you turn up and go.

nick9191
Jan 15, 2009, 07:17 AM
Maybe we should build high-speed rail links instead...
In this country? ROFL.

I remember when the German's were developing trains for us, they actually had to spend £3m smashing and battering a piece of their track to get it like ours.

arkitect
Jan 15, 2009, 07:17 AM
This just in:

The debate over the third runway in the Commons has been halted…
Great unhappiness.

John McDonnell MP has been suspended.

What hope for the future if this happens under a Labour government?

robbieduncan
Jan 15, 2009, 07:19 AM
It takes longer once you factor in extended journey times to and from airports, check in time etc. With rail you turn up and go.

Not London to Aberdeen it doesn't. I can leave work at 5pm and be in my parents house in Aberdeen by 10pm. The fastest train I can find from London to Aberdeen takes 6h53m. And that doesn't include the time taken to get to Kings Cross...

Dagless
Jan 15, 2009, 07:29 AM
And the Tories are saying if they're in charge they'll be scrapping the 3rd runway altogether.
This whole thing is going to get more crazy.

BoyBach
Jan 15, 2009, 07:35 AM
And the Tories are saying if they're in charge they'll be scrapping the 3rd runway altogether.


The Lib Dems are also opposed, so anything other than a sizeable New Labour majority following the next General Election should bring the whole thing to a grinding halt.

arkitect
Jan 15, 2009, 07:36 AM
The Lib Dems are also opposed, so anything other than a sizeable New Labour majority following the next General Election should bring the whole thing to a grinding halt.

Of course. Just more money down the pi**er…

Unfortunately what an Opposition party says it will do can massively change the moment they cross the House.

QFT. :o

Queso
Jan 15, 2009, 07:36 AM
The Lib Dems are also opposed, so anything other than a sizeable New Labour majority following the next General Election should bring the whole thing to a grinding halt.
Unfortunately what an Opposition party says it will do can massively change the moment they cross the House.

edesignuk
Jan 15, 2009, 07:36 AM
I don't know if I'm for or against, but the arguments are only going to get worse :rolleyes:

garybUK
Jan 15, 2009, 08:21 AM
I stay around Sipson and it's a dump it needs levelling! i feel sorry for the people loosing their homes though.

johnnyjibbs
Jan 15, 2009, 10:59 AM
The way this has been forced through is a disgrace. What is mildly amusing, however, is that - as an extra to the plan - the government is now considering throwing a "high speed rail link to Scotland" into the plans to appease the environmentalists. :D

We've been sitting back for years and years in dire need of a high speed rail link - the likes of which France has had for 20-30 years now and even Spain and Italy now have - but yet they've never coughed up the £20-30bn needed, instead preferring to spend nearly as much on longer trains and tilting ones that don't work anyway. Even the huge success of the Eurostar seems to have escaped their notice... :rolleyes:

This expansion plan just stinks of the decision to give the green light on a new generation of nuclear power. Not to mention the Iraq War. The plan is simple: wait a few months pretending they're debating all the options, then just ram through whatever they decided beforehand anyway, however unpopular with the British people. Oh how lazy and unwilling we are. :o:(

cantthinkofone
Jan 15, 2009, 11:03 AM
could you imagine it though? our rail networks are pretty crap and the prices we pay are crazy (most times)...
if somehow high speed rail was achieved.. who could afford to use it?

Be thankful that you have a public train system. I would have to drink 50 miles to get to one. And i can't go cross country.

Counterfit
Jan 15, 2009, 01:35 PM
Be thankful that you have a public train system. I would have to drink 50 miles to get to one. And i can't go cross country.

Sure you can, just not on one train. My cousin did Seattle -> Providence, which was really Seattle -> Chicago, Chicago -> Washington, Washington -> Providence (on the Acela).

remmy
Jan 15, 2009, 02:08 PM
Not London to Aberdeen it doesn't. I can leave work at 5pm and be in my parents house in Aberdeen by 10pm. The fastest train I can find from London to Aberdeen takes 6h53m. And that doesn't include the time taken to get to Kings Cross...

But if the train service was any good using high speed trains, it would probably be similar times. Add the fact that the train service is quieter and does not take air space for other flights.

I feel that the government are once again investing in something backward. While the rest of Europe are investing in rail the government invests in something we already have.

Also what bugs me is the idea that rail services need to be profitable and make big money when really they are part of necessary transport.

Don't panic
Jan 15, 2009, 06:24 PM
i am not familiar with the issues at stake, but if it helps making the worst airport in europe a little less bad, i am all for it.

.Andy
Jan 15, 2009, 06:26 PM
Instead of spending all this money you could always just start landing on rivers like they do in the US.

aethelbert
Jan 15, 2009, 08:26 PM
Instead of spending all this money you could always just start landing on rivers like they do in the US.
"Speedbird 682 heavy, request taxi to the gate."

"BA 682, just sink to the bottom of the Thames. Good day"

.Andy
Jan 15, 2009, 08:30 PM
"Speedbird 682 heavy, request taxi to the gate."

"BA 682, just sink to the bottom of the Thames. Good day"
:D! Akonradi quick stupid plane question that I've given absolutely no thought to asking. How watertight is a plane? Assuming it is intact and sinks would it will up with water? Or would you have oxygen in there for a fair while?

dmr727
Jan 15, 2009, 10:59 PM
^^^ They're leaky, so the plane will eventually fill up. How long it'll take I couldn't tell you, but I'm pretty sure that it won't be like Airport '77 where you can wait around for awhile to be rescued. :)