Does Ibiza Airport still have traffic lights at the end of its runway?
My solution to the extra runway problem is to build 3 (possibly 4) of them. This is not too much tongue in cheek. Extra runways at Gatwick and Stansted (possibly Luton) would help with the capacity problem and simply extending one runway at Heathrow to allow both take offs and landings simultaneously would increase the ability of Heathrow do deal with 'emergency' capacity following fog, snow, traffic control delays etc. This would make it a more reliable hub, but not materially affect its traffic. And technically it would only be 2 runways. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2858732/Plans-four-half-mile-runway-Heathrow-show.html Note it involves diverting the M25 into a tunnel. My version of the above plan still puts lots more capacity elsewhere and is not particularly 'pro Heathrow'. I would limit any increase in usage to a minimum but use the extra notional capacity to make Heathrow more reliable as a hub. Heathrow really is in the wrong place - but it's there so make the best of it without creating even more congestion. The last thing we should worry about is cost (ie the building of 2 additional runways) - we are stuck with a vast bill anyway and we need the capacity. We need to think ahead.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
On Heathrow. So instead of just annoying the people who live around Heathrow, they've decided to annoy everyone in the South East who has to use that part of the M25.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
Yeah, I seriously doubt a bridge was *ever* considered.
The northwest option clearly shows a tunnel on the maps from Heathrow's website:
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It's not that bonkers - it's done elsewhere in the world.
It's done at Charles de Gaulle just north of Paris. Been like that since the 70's I guess. Can be a little disconcerting at certain angles seeing a jumbo ahead of you on the motorway for a moment, but you get used to it. That said, driving away from it, I usually count off a few seconds until I think I'm at a safe distance just in case one fell off the runway in my rear view mirror and went "bang".
Festival of Nimbyism in our fair country this morning I see.
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
I'm skim-reading the report; a tunnel is mentioned as being required for the chosen option.
Other things to note: the report recommends an end to night flights (23.30 to 06.00) and the government to state categorically via legislation that there will be no fourth runway at Heathrow.
As capacity is scheduled to beat the third runway before 2050, expect these assurances to not be worth much.
So far however, it seems to me that Gatwick delivers much better bang-for-the-buck; i.e. increased capacity for price. I'll need to read further to see if that's fully correct.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
Yeah, I seriously doubt a bridge was *ever* considered.
The northwest option clearly shows a tunnel on the maps from Heathrow's website:
Festival of Nimbyism in our fair country this morning I see.
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
Incidentally, there's a Yorkshire aspect to the London airport (no, really). There was a piece on Look North recently about the cancelled rail projects, two of which are in Yorkshire. And £1 being spent here for every £10 in London.
Now, you can argue about infrastructure and value to the economy, and there's a valid argument to be had, but when Yorkshire is again seeing projects cancelled (there's been a tram system hokey-cokey in Leeds several times as well as the recent railway issues) and London's biggest problem is whether to build another runway here or another runway there, the contrast may not play well.
Tell me about it.
Hi TSE. Just enquiring as to the status of the second coming of the AV thread?
Thanks....
titters
It should have been going up this afternoon.
I suspect it will have to be bumped because of Heathrow.
My stint as Guest Editor ends tomorrow evening and I'm running out of time as I have three pre-prepared and one or two may have to end up on the cutting room floor.
The pieces are on
1) Electoral reform/AV
2) The Greatest political master strategist of his era
3) Trolling Analysing the Nats and Kippers in the same piece.
A hearty congratulations on this stint as guest editor, even if it was a very uneventful period. That congratulations subject to that av thread of course.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It's not that bonkers - it's done elsewhere in the world.
It's done at Charles de Gaulle just north of Paris. Been like that since the 70's I guess. Can be a little disconcerting at certain angles seeing a jumbo ahead of you on the motorway for a moment, but you get used to it. That said, driving away from it, I usually count off a few seconds until I think I'm at a safe distance just in case one fell off the runway in my rear view mirror and went "bang".
Given I've fe some reason been bombarded with pro gat wick messages on the web, I'm all for Heathrow expansion, as it's gotten pretty annoying, and it seems like they gat wick people like zac and co will whinge more entertainingly if they lose out .
Incidentally, there's a Yorkshire aspect to the London airport (no, really). There was a piece on Look North recently about the cancelled rail projects, two of which are in Yorkshire. And £1 being spent here for every £10 in London.
Now, you can argue about infrastructure and value to the economy, and there's a valid argument to be had, but when Yorkshire is again seeing projects cancelled (there's been a tram system hokey-cokey in Leeds several times as well as the recent railway issues) and London's biggest problem is whether to build another runway here or another runway there, the contrast may not play well.
Tell me about it.
Hi TSE. Just enquiring as to the status of the second coming of the AV thread?
Thanks....
titters
It should have been going up this afternoon.
I suspect it will have to be bumped because of Heathrow.
My stint as Guest Editor ends tomorrow evening and I'm running out of time as I have three pre-prepared and one or two may have to end up on the cutting room floor.
The pieces are on
1) Electoral reform/AV
2) The Greatest political master strategist of his era
3) Trolling Analysing the Nats and Kippers in the same piece.
A hearty congratulations on this stint as guest editor, even if it was a very uneventful period. That congratulations subject to that av thread of course.
I've loved this stint as Guest Editor.
Greece is the word and turning a crisis into a Drachma threads were personal high points.
If the problems are noise and the desire of foreigners to go to London, might not the answer be to have an airport out in the countryside with a very, very, very long runway for the planes to taxi into the capital? How about Norwich?
There was of course no need for 90 day detention and no need for David Davis to go off his self serving rocker over it. There is a need for intelligence gathering under clause 1 page 1 of the Manual on How to Defeat Terrorism. We should not be shy about putting up with it
Not that many people are shy about letting the intelligence services go about their business spying. Where people's teeth start to itch (and I mean sensible people not tin foil hatters) is when legislation like RIPA gives access to, and permission to gather, such intelligence to your local authority, your local LEA, the Charity Commission, Food Standards Commission, Financial Services Authority, Ofcom, The Pensions Regulator, NHS Ambulance Services Trust, the Post Office, the Gambling Commission etc, to name less than a quarter of the bodies listed, none of which have any reasonable cause to have access to, never mind reason to procure information by eaves dropping and surveillance.
These powers have been used for such essential matters of national security as dog fouling, unlawful parking, and determining if parents live inside a school catchment area. This government has improved this situation slightly with recent laws, but can't be surprised people look on the possibility of wholesale capture of their internet usage with a less than enthusiastic air, since they have very little trust that only those people involved in the defence of the realm will have access to it.
Festival of Nimbyism in our fair country this morning I see.
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
If you're going by population centre arguments, then East Mids Airport would be the best choice !
But seeing as it's a non runner, Heathrow's location crucially to the west of London means it is easier to get to for the average person by population somewhere between Nuneaton and Leicester.
Slightly surprising that security does not feature on that list. I wonder if this was done before Tunisia.
Responses to 'Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism' total 2% - with the Welsh most worried at 8%
However atrocious Tunisia was, and the next outrage will be, voters may know that for all the horror we are individually at extremely small risk - and crossing the road, or going downstairs remain substantially more dangerous.....
There is a piece in the Telegraph today asking how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the murder of 30 British citizens. I don't think a minute's silence quite covers it.
Yeah, perhaps something really effective along the lines of the terrorist broadcasting ban is what's needed.
Ha, that brings back memories of the Ulterman actor hired by the BBC to lipsync interviews of Messrs Adams and McGuinness in the 1980s.
What the authorities thought might happen if we got to hear their actual voices God only knows?
But we are told its the interweb and social media that is being used. Is the head if ISIS (who?) being interviewed and so needs 'lip synching'? No, twitter and You-Tube are beyond all that. As it is, ISIS seems to be running out of people to execute and bizarre ways to do it. As far as I can see it is making up executable offences as it goes along and choosing methods from a Strictly Islamic State's Got The X-Factor Contest (probably hosted by a smarmy swarthy man in a black T-shirt). In short, its methods are self defeating. We become inured to terrorism and recognise innately that these people are beyond reason. In the Middle Ages we got used to cholera plague and London burning down on a regular basis. A civil war (which is what is going on in the middle east) is different to terrorism. A civil war ends when one side has been crushed and when both sides are shattered emaciated and sickened by their consequential losses. At the end of a civil war both sides have to carry on living together.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Incidentally, there's a Yorkshire aspect to the London airport (no, really). There was a piece on Look North recently about the cancelled rail projects, two of which are in Yorkshire. And £1 being spent here for every £10 in London.
Now, you can argue about infrastructure and value to the economy, and there's a valid argument to be had, but when Yorkshire is again seeing projects cancelled (there's been a tram system hokey-cokey in Leeds several times as well as the recent railway issues) and London's biggest problem is whether to build another runway here or another runway there, the contrast may not play well.
Tell me about it.
Hi TSE. Just enquiring as to the status of the second coming of the AV thread?
Thanks....
titters
It should have been going up this afternoon.
I suspect it will have to be bumped because of Heathrow.
My stint as Guest Editor ends tomorrow evening and I'm running out of time as I have three pre-prepared and one or two may have to end up on the cutting room floor.
The pieces are on
1) Electoral reform/AV
2) The Greatest political master strategist of his era
3) Trolling Analysing the Nats and Kippers in the same piece.
A hearty congratulations on this stint as guest editor, even if it was a very uneventful period. That congratulations subject to that av thread of course.
I've loved this stint as Guest Editor.
Greece is the word and turning a crisis into a Drachma threads were personal high points.
Well done Mr Eagles on your guest stint. A quiet couple of weeks as usual when Mike goes away. ;-)
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It would be much more exciting if the runway ran *under* the M25, with the road being on a bridge.
This would mean that you would look down on planes landing, and it would be like landing inside a giant net.
SUPER COOL, huh???
Super cool, unless you were the pilot told to go around at the last minute, looking at the bridge in front of you getting a lot bigger very quickly!
There's loads of runways over roads around the world, there's definitely no roads over runways anywhere, with bloody good reason!!!!!!
No problem: just make the bridge a suspension one, with incredibly strong motors that can tighten the supports instantly. If there is a requirement for a go-around, then the moment the pilot presses the button, it triggers the moving of the bridge.
Of course, it'll be a bit scary for the drivers, but it'll be INCREDIBLY COOL.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It's not that bonkers - it's done elsewhere in the world.
Well, it seems bonkers to a lay man like me. Surely in safety there is the concept of very low risk, but massive impact, for an event? In this case an aircraft misses the runway due to engine trouble and ploughs into miles of stationery M25 traffic.
Personally, I'm yet to be convinced that we actually need extra capacity in the South (again!), but if we really do, then maybe Boris is the only one talking sense on this one.
Most of the time the planes will be landing from the London end (i.e. into the wind), but I suspect what would be built is a big tunnel for the M25, rather than a narrow bridge.
The bigger issue will be building it and the massive disruption to the motorway/
The A538 runs under both runways at Manchester International via bridge/tunnel.
CON 40.2% (-14.2) PC 39.0% (+26.9) LAB 16.8% (-12.3) IND 1.7% (+1.7) GRN 1.6% (-1.2) LDEM 0.7% (-0.8)
Wow - surprising numbers. Does anyone on the ground know what was behind the PC surge, given that they came damn close to winning from a distant 3rd place?
It was the new Tory MP for Cardiff North who resigned as a councillor to prompt the election, which makes it a little "unusual". There's an issue around reopening a quarry in Cregiau in the ward (or next door at least) which the Plaid candidate opposed as apparently there'd be loads of lorries trundling around a fairly leafy semi rural area. He's local to the area which helps (I assume the other candidates were but I don't know), and is (I think) married to Catrin Finch who is a very well known harpist (well known, in harping circles if you follow me) which probably did no harm. Labour have had some bad press on Cardiff council getting their budget through with rebellions rumbling against the leadership too over the past few months.
The M3/M4/M25 combo is a hellhole all the time nowadays...
I would personally go for Gatwick.
You live in Sussex though!
Breaking News: Most people don't. Most people would have to schlep round the M25 to get to gatwick!
A new runway at Gatwick would need massive improvements to the M25 and M23, especially the latter where there's no exit north of the airport up to the M25, and no parallel road to take the traffic if there's an accident - the old A23 being a single carriageway running through several town centres and having no M25 exit.
In-spite of the report I still think Gatwick will get it. Heathrow p*sses too many people/interest groups off, plus that bridge over the M25 is going to be a nightmare.
Why don't they ban freight from Heathrow? Send it up to East Midlands and link it with a rail freight terminal. That would free up some capacity at Heathrow wouldn't it?
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
Yeah, I seriously doubt a bridge was *ever* considered.
The northwest option clearly shows a tunnel on the maps from Heathrow's website:
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It would be much more exciting if the runway ran *under* the M25, with the road being on a bridge.
This would mean that you would look down on planes landing, and it would be like landing inside a giant net.
SUPER COOL, huh???
Super cool, unless you were the pilot told to go around at the last minute, looking at the bridge in front of you getting a lot bigger very quickly!
There's loads of runways over roads around the world, there's definitely no roads over runways anywhere, with bloody good reason!!!!!!
No problem: just make the bridge a suspension one, with incredibly strong motors that can tighten the supports instantly. If there is a requirement for a go-around, then the moment the pilot presses the button, it triggers the moving of the bridge.
Of course, it'll be a bit scary for the drivers, but it'll be INCREDIBLY COOL.
Cable-stayed bridges might be better for that.
Or even better: just develop the rubber-bed landings that were experimented with during the 1050s:
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
I'm skim-reading the report; a tunnel is mentioned as being required for the chosen option.
Other things to note: the report recommends an end to night flights (23.30 to 06.00) and the government to state categorically via legislation that there will be no fourth runway at Heathrow.
As capacity is scheduled to beat the third runway before 2050, expect these assurances to not be worth much.
So far however, it seems to me that Gatwick delivers much better bang-for-the-buck; i.e. increased capacity for price. I'll need to read further to see if that's fully correct.
Does Heathrow even have night flights at the moment? Maybe the quieter aircraft are allowed to operate 24/7?
Looking at the news last night (which probably was selective) the Greeks seemed to be split into those with the common economic sense and those who wanted no austerity and expected Germany and others just to bale them out and still carry on unreformed.
I feel that in the referendum, economic common sense may just prevail.
There's no common sense here. The EU leaders think that successive crises can bring their dream of a single State closer. Syriza think they can ignore economic reality. Whichever way the Greeks vote, they lose.
Quite. Those advocating 'ever closer union' need to understand that this means Greece's bills are paid by Germany. That's how a superstate HAS to work, it's a single country after all.
Meanwhile the Greek govt think that the Eurocrats' belief in 'ever closer union' means that they will eventually fold, as there's no formal mechanism for kicking them out of the Euro.
Dangerous games when playing for such high stakes. One imagines that Mme Legard is wishing the IMF had never got involved with the EZ countries at all.
Aren't you looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope? Ever closer union means accepting closer taxes and monetary control and the common political decisions that go with that. Greece has not.
We - Britain, us, the tories, Cameron - recognise that and do not want to be will not be part of such closer union and associated monetary fiscal and political controls. Thats why we need to renegotiate to get the deal that protects us from Eurozone hegemony within the EU. This was always going to happen from the moment we did not join the Euro. I think we have a good chance to get something meaningful. If we do not than it's likely we will be in an EEA orbit outside the EU rather than a similar orbit within the EU.
In-spite of the report I still think Gatwick will get it. Heathrow p*sses too many people/interest groups off, plus that bridge over the M25 is going to be a nightmare.
Why don't they ban freight from Heathrow? Send it up to East Midlands and link it with a rail freight terminal. That would free up some capacity at Heathrow wouldn't it?
Why not use Heathrow just for long haul and put all holiday flights from Stanstead, Gatwick (plus extra runway) & Luton. There are very good rail and coach connections to Gatwick and rail to Stanstead.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It would be much more exciting if the runway ran *under* the M25, with the road being on a bridge.
This would mean that you would look down on planes landing, and it would be like landing inside a giant net.
SUPER COOL, huh???
Super cool, unless you were the pilot told to go around at the last minute, looking at the bridge in front of you getting a lot bigger very quickly!
There's loads of runways over roads around the world, there's definitely no roads over runways anywhere, with bloody good reason!!!!!!
No problem: just make the bridge a suspension one, with incredibly strong motors that can tighten the supports instantly. If there is a requirement for a go-around, then the moment the pilot presses the button, it triggers the moving of the bridge.
Of course, it'll be a bit scary for the drivers, but it'll be INCREDIBLY COOL.
Now I know you're taking the p!ss! I wonder how your plan might work on the foggy days in West London, when the pilot can't see the bridge?
@calum the old HK airport at Kai Tak was fantastic, especially on a windy day! Plenty of videos of planes scraping wingtips, tails and some hairy go-arounds (including a French Concorde) if one wishes to spend a whole day on Youtube.
The Davies Commission is corporatism at its worst. Anyone who proposes to build a new runway without public subsidy should be allowed to do so. The concessions to NIMBYs in expensive property in West London are intolerable.
Incidentally, there's a Yorkshire aspect to the London airport (no, really). There was a piece on Look North recently about the cancelled rail projects, two of which are in Yorkshire. And £1 being spent here for every £10 in London.
Now, you can argue about infrastructure and value to the economy, and there's a valid argument to be had, but when Yorkshire is again seeing projects cancelled (there's been a tram system hokey-cokey in Leeds several times as well as the recent railway issues) and London's biggest problem is whether to build another runway here or another runway there, the contrast may not play well.
Point of order: the Trans-Pennine Express and Midland Main Line electrifications are currently only paused whilst Network Rail tries to work out how it's failed so miserably after just one year of the five year plan. Whilst that pause might turn to cancellation, it has not yet, although there will certainly be a delay.
Another issue for the TPE is that the proposed HS3 scheme might change what will need to be electrified, although that seems like a slightly odd excuse.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It's not that bonkers - it's done elsewhere in the world.
It's done at Charles de Gaulle just north of Paris. Been like that since the 70's I guess. Can be a little disconcerting at certain angles seeing a jumbo ahead of you on the motorway for a moment, but you get used to it. That said, driving away from it, I usually count off a few seconds until I think I'm at a safe distance just in case one fell off the runway in my rear view mirror and went "bang".
Yes, that would make me press the accelerator and make the Stig look like Captain Slow I think.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
Nothing could possibly go wrong with that.
The M25 will run in a tunnel underneath the runway, below a reinforced concrete apron half a mile wide, complete with run off areas and concrete barriers airside. No different from the existing spur. What's the problem?
Looking at the news last night (which probably was selective) the Greeks seemed to be split into those with the common economic sense and those who wanted no austerity and expected Germany and others just to bale them out and still carry on unreformed.
I feel that in the referendum, economic common sense may just prevail.
There's no common sense here. The EU leaders think that successive crises can bring their dream of a single State closer. Syriza think they can ignore economic reality. Whichever way the Greeks vote, they lose.
Quite. Those advocating 'ever closer union' need to understand that this means Greece's bills are paid by Germany. That's how a superstate HAS to work, it's a single country after all.
Meanwhile the Greek govt think that the Eurocrats' belief in 'ever closer union' means that they will eventually fold, as there's no formal mechanism for kicking them out of the Euro.
Dangerous games when playing for such high stakes. One imagines that Mme Legard is wishing the IMF had never got involved with the EZ countries at all.
Aren't you looking at this through the wrong end of the telescope? Ever closer union means accepting closer taxes and monetary control and the common political decisions that go with that. Greece has not.
Agree except that it's not just Greece that hasn't, it's the whole EZ but especially Germany, whose citizens don't want their role in transfer payments either.
The EZ either has to behave much more like one country, with common tax rates, benefits payments, pensions and transfer payments, or the Euro will lurch from crisis to crisis in the years to come.
Slightly surprising that security does not feature on that list. I wonder if this was done before Tunisia.
Responses to 'Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism' total 2% - with the Welsh most worried at 8%
However atrocious Tunisia was, and the next outrage will be, voters may know that for all the horror we are individually at extremely small risk - and crossing the road, or going downstairs remain substantially more dangerous.....
There is a piece in the Telegraph today asking how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the murder of 30 British citizens. I don't think a minute's silence quite covers it.
Another 'Thatcher' piece that uses her name to peddle fantasies. No one knows because there is no comparison. Irish terrorism (from both sides) ended not because Thatcher bombed Dublin, but because the civil war in Northern Ireland was reaching cataclysmic proportions.
In-spite of the report I still think Gatwick will get it. Heathrow p*sses too many people/interest groups off, plus that bridge over the M25 is going to be a nightmare.
Why don't they ban freight from Heathrow? Send it up to East Midlands and link it with a rail freight terminal. That would free up some capacity at Heathrow wouldn't it?
Why not use Heathrow just for long haul and put all holiday flights from Stanstead, Gatwick (plus extra runway) & Luton. There are very good rail and coach connections to Gatwick and rail to Stanstead.
Yes, they should have been looking at how to wind down Heathrow in the long run given its inherent unsuitability given its location. Freight moved elsewhere and greater use of regional airports is the way to go. More flights to Asia, more regional flights to Dubai and change there, etc.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It isn't beyond our ability to build a tunnel! I think the only reason they aligned the runway that way was to try to mitigate some of the noise over western London.
The diagram that is floating around shows a bridge. I suspect, because a tunnel would have put the price up massively more.
It's madness all around IMHO.
I'm skim-reading the report; a tunnel is mentioned as being required for the chosen option.
Other things to note: the report recommends an end to night flights (23.30 to 06.00) and the government to state categorically via legislation that there will be no fourth runway at Heathrow.
As capacity is scheduled to beat the third runway before 2050, expect these assurances to not be worth much.
So far however, it seems to me that Gatwick delivers much better bang-for-the-buck; i.e. increased capacity for price. I'll need to read further to see if that's fully correct.
Does Heathrow even have night flights at the moment? Maybe the quieter aircraft are allowed to operate 24/7?
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
CON 40.2% (-14.2) PC 39.0% (+26.9) LAB 16.8% (-12.3) IND 1.7% (+1.7) GRN 1.6% (-1.2) LDEM 0.7% (-0.8)
Wow - surprising numbers. Does anyone on the ground know what was behind the PC surge, given that they came damn close to winning from a distant 3rd place?
It was the new Tory MP for Cardiff North who resigned as a councillor to prompt the election, which makes it a little "unusual". There's an issue around reopening a quarry in Cregiau in the ward (or next door at least) which the Plaid candidate opposed as apparently there'd be loads of lorries trundling around a fairly leafy semi rural area. He's local to the area which helps (I assume the other candidates were but I don't know), and is (I think) married to Catrin Finch who is a very well known harpist (well known, in harping circles if you follow me) which probably did no harm. Labour have had some bad press on Cardiff council getting their budget through with rebellions rumbling against the leadership too over the past few months.
The artist's impression had a tunnel. Fun traffic when construction comes around!
Yes, the runway and parallel taxiway will be on a (bomb proof?) bridge over the M25, will certainly disrupt traffic while they build it. Also note the relocation of the M4 Spur tunnel further East.
Seriously? The run-way will be on a bridge over a motorway! I think that tells you all you need to know about how bonkers all this has become.
It would be much more exciting if the runway ran *under* the M25, with the road being on a bridge.
This would mean that you would look down on planes landing, and it would be like landing inside a giant net.
SUPER COOL, huh???
Super cool, unless you were the pilot told to go around at the last minute, looking at the bridge in front of you getting a lot bigger very quickly!
There's loads of runways over roads around the world, there's definitely no roads over runways anywhere, with bloody good reason!!!!!!
No problem: just make the bridge a suspension one, with incredibly strong motors that can tighten the supports instantly. If there is a requirement for a go-around, then the moment the pilot presses the button, it triggers the moving of the bridge.
Of course, it'll be a bit scary for the drivers, but it'll be INCREDIBLY COOL.
Now I know you're taking the p!ss! I wonder how your plan might work on the foggy days in West London, when the pilot can't see the bridge?
@calum the old HK airport at Kai Tak was fantastic, especially on a windy day! Plenty of videos of planes scraping wingtips, tails and some hairy go-arounds (including a French Concorde) if one wishes to spend a whole day on Youtube.
Actually I've also got a thread that compares Ed Miliband to Hannibal of Carthage in the pipeline
HoCICIPM
What about Caesar is Crap and Will Never be Emperor.
Glad to see you are back alive and well and typing BTW. I've always had a rule (which I agree does not apply to Tunisia, but it conditions my decisions) that said 'Never holiday in a country with a demilitarised zone'.
Presumably London Airport Capacity has been missed in error from the list of Issues facing Britain.
Surely this should be above housing and education at least
It's the sort of background infrastructure we all rely on, yet few people seem to acknowledge even exists until it goes wrong. A little like roads, railways, sewage et al.
It'd be nice if we had more 'proper' engineers in parliament.
Presumably London Airport Capacity has been missed in error from the list of Issues facing Britain.
Surely this should be above housing and education at least
It's the sort of background infrastructure we all rely on, yet few people seem to acknowledge even exists until it goes wrong. A little like roads, railways, sewage et al.
It'd be nice if we had more 'proper' engineers in parliament.
Like!
The same problems are being seen all around the developed world, there was massive infrastructure investment after WWII and it's all getting rather old now. In the US they've teams of military engineers going around keeping roads open when bridges are condemned or even collapse!
The fieldwork for this ended on the 15th of June, so I've edited the thread header so it now reads
The fieldwork for this polling ended on the 15th of June, so before the recent events in Greece and Tunisia
Most people don't, I suspect, feel personally very worried by either Tunisia or Greece, even if like us with BigJohn they know someone who came very close to the horror. The Tunisian slaughter is awful but categorised as "dreadful things sometimes happen around the world". Greece is seen as very specifically about Greece.
Both objectively and subjectively, as Carlotta says, people know that the risk of a madman shooting you is very, very low down on your list of daily dangers. I think that people in London did feel it had become significant for a bit after 7/7, and previously at the height of the IRA bombings, but otherwise it's just registered as one of the horrid but fairly unlikely things that might happen.
That doesn't mean that people don't want the Government to be proactive and vigilant - of course they do. But it's not really impinging much as a personal factor at the present levels. Nor should it - it'd be bonkers if people going to the supermarket looked round nervously to see if someone was about to shoot them. We owe it to ourselves not to get too paranoid about it: we're just playing the ISIS game if we do.
I agree with all of that Nick but if I were asked now about issues facing the country security would certainly be in my top 4.
Like all of these headings it is a broad category with a range of facets: how do we deal with the fact that hundreds of our citizens want to go to fight with ISIL in Syria or Iraq, have we gone too far in defence cuts, should we get more directly involved in the fight against ISIS, how do we deal with the security risk at home without turning into a police state, how do we correct the mistakes of multi-culturalism and integrate better into a unified community, where is the boundary between free speech and incitement to be put etc etc.
All of these questions seem to me relevant to our future security and they do not have straightforward answers.
These are all very good questions and the government should be coming up with practical answers and implementing them. Overreaction is not needed but nor is an "Oh well, stuff happens" response. What seems surprising to me is that only the Tories seem to be thinking about these things. I may have missed this but has anyone in Labour come up with any sort of coherent thought about how to address the ISIL threat at home and/or a response to Cameron's speech on extremism?
Incidentally, there's a Yorkshire aspect to the London airport (no, really). There was a piece on Look North recently about the cancelled rail projects, two of which are in Yorkshire. And £1 being spent here for every £10 in London.
Now, you can argue about infrastructure and value to the economy, and there's a valid argument to be had, but when Yorkshire is again seeing projects cancelled (there's been a tram system hokey-cokey in Leeds several times as well as the recent railway issues) and London's biggest problem is whether to build another runway here or another runway there, the contrast may not play well.
Tell me about it.
Hi TSE. Just enquiring as to the status of the second coming of the AV thread?
Thanks....
titters
It should have been going up this afternoon.
I suspect it will have to be bumped because of Heathrow.
My stint as Guest Editor ends tomorrow evening and I'm running out of time as I have three pre-prepared and one or two may have to end up on the cutting room floor.
The pieces are on
1) Electoral reform/AV
2) The Greatest political master strategist of his era
3) Trolling Analysing the Nats and Kippers in the same piece.
A hearty congratulations on this stint as guest editor, even if it was a very uneventful period. That congratulations subject to that av thread of course.
I've loved this stint as Guest Editor.
Greece is the word and turning a crisis into a Drachma threads were personal high points.
Time for us to worry is when you move on from Greece to Saturday Night Fever....
Actually I've also got a thread that compares Ed Miliband to Hannibal of Carthage in the pipeline
HoCICIPM
What about Caesar is Crap and Will Never be Emperor.
Glad to see you are back alive and well and typing BTW. I've always had a rule (which I agree does not apply to Tunisia, but it conditions my decisions) that said 'Never holiday in a country with a demilitarised zone'.
Cleethorpes yesterday for us. The Cleethorpes Minature railway was suspended due to the rails expanding too much due to the hot weather We were convinced it was a terrorist attack at first!
Whelks, Waffles and Crazy Golf!
I think I have been spending too much time with TSE found it all a bit too "working class" for my tastes. I think I must be turning into a retired class snob.
Arcades full of gunfire entertainment a bit too scary too.
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
Slightly surprising that security does not feature on that list. I wonder if this was done before Tunisia.
Responses to 'Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism' total 2% - with the Welsh most worried at 8%
However atrocious Tunisia was, and the next outrage will be, voters may know that for all the horror we are individually at extremely small risk - and crossing the road, or going downstairs remain substantially more dangerous.....
There is a piece in the Telegraph today asking how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the murder of 30 British citizens. I don't think a minute's silence quite covers it.
Another 'Thatcher' piece that uses her name to peddle fantasies. No one knows because there is no comparison. Irish terrorism (from both sides) ended not because Thatcher bombed Dublin, but because the civil war in Northern Ireland was reaching cataclysmic proportions.
It's worth remembering that the worst atrocity in the Troubles happened in 1974 when 3 bombs were exploded in Dublin during the rush hour and one in Monaghan. 33 people were killed and 300 injured. Unionist terrorists were responsible.
But it's not really impinging much as a personal factor at the present levels. Nor should it - it'd be bonkers if people going to the supermarket looked round nervously to see if someone was about to shoot them. We owe it to ourselves not to get too paranoid about it: we're just playing the ISIS game if we do.
How pleasant it is to read some sense on this subject. Were you playing the the fanatics' game when voted for indefinite detention of foreign terrorist suspects without trial [HC Deb 21 Nov 2001, col. 407], for control orders [HC Deb 23 Feb 2005, col. 437], and for 90 day pre-charge detention [HC Deb 9 Nov 2005, col. 367]? One of the principal reasons why people are more likely to overact to murderous outrages today is because of the absurd and authoritarian overreaction of successive governments over the last fifteen years.
It's a fair point from your position, but the same majority of people (including me) who aren't really worried that someobody will murder them in Sainsbury also aren't really worried that people suspected of terrorism are detained for 90 days. Similarly, the deal on detention of suspected foreign terrorists seemed to me fair enough - they could leave Britain at any time, but we felt they were too risky to allow to wander around here. If they felt that being in detention here was preferable to being sent abroad (because they might get killed by rival factions), that was their decision, which they were free to reconsider at any time.
And we're also not much bothered if Royal Mail and the Inland Revenue and the local council and the biscuit factory can read our email and tap our phones. Perhaps we should be, but we're not. Terrorism, snooping, whatever - unless they actually overtly affect their daily lives, they're just not big issues for most people.
Conversely, people get enormously fussed about things which in the abstract are completely unimportant. I remember holding public debates over (a) whether we should intervene in Iraq (b) whether we should have identity cards and (c) whether Tesco should be allowed to open a big store on the local high street. Attendance? 50 for (a), 30 for (b), over 200 for (c). And (c) was the only one where people got really heated.
Yes, I know, you'll say what a good thing I'm no longer an MP with views like that - though I'm more concerned about issues like the balance between protection and liberty than most constituents were, and I'd be closer to you than you might think - I do realise that people get maltreated if we cut too many corners. But there are plenty of MPs on all sides who actually don't give these issues a serious thought, just like many voters.
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
'I may have missed this but has anyone in Labour come up with any sort of coherent thought about how to address the ISIL threat at home and/or a response to Cameron's speech on extremism?'
All four Labour leadership candidates agreed on Friday for gender equality in future shadow cabinets.
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
Slightly surprising that security does not feature on that list. I wonder if this was done before Tunisia.
Responses to 'Defence/foreign affairs/international terrorism' total 2% - with the Welsh most worried at 8%
However atrocious Tunisia was, and the next outrage will be, voters may know that for all the horror we are individually at extremely small risk - and crossing the road, or going downstairs remain substantially more dangerous.....
There is a piece in the Telegraph today asking how Margaret Thatcher would have responded to the murder of 30 British citizens. I don't think a minute's silence quite covers it.
Another 'Thatcher' piece that uses her name to peddle fantasies. No one knows because there is no comparison. Irish terrorism (from both sides) ended not because Thatcher bombed Dublin, but because the civil war in Northern Ireland was reaching cataclysmic proportions.
It's worth remembering that the worst atrocity in the Troubles happened in 1974 when 3 bombs were exploded in Dublin during the rush hour and one in Monaghan. 33 people were killed and 300 injured. Unionist terrorists were responsible.
Regardless of what now happens with Greece, it's worth noting what an utter disaster the Euro has been so far - half of Europe in recession, a country enduring real economic harm, youngsters forced to leave their country to find work, democratically elected governments undermined to satisfy bankers, bureaucrats arrogating more and more power to themselves, institutions ignoring their own rules and laws to do what they want, extremist parties growing again.
The ins and outs are complicated, of course, but the broad picture is not of the "glorious sunlit uplands" that was promised.
'I may have missed this but has anyone in Labour come up with any sort of coherent thought about how to address the ISIL threat at home and/or a response to Cameron's speech on extremism?'
All four Labour leadership candidates agreed on Friday for gender equality in future shadow cabinets.
Oh good! We can have women addressing gender segregated groups of voters.
But it's not really impinging much as a personal factor at the present levels. Nor should it - it'd be bonkers if people going to the supermarket looked round nervously to see if someone was about to shoot them. We owe it to ourselves not to get too paranoid about it: we're just playing the ISIS game if we do.
.
It's a fair point from your position, but the same majority of people (including me) who aren't really worried that someobody will murder them in Sainsbury also aren't really worried that people suspected of terrorism are detained for 90 days. Similarly, the deal on detention of suspected foreign terrorists seemed to me fair enough - they could leave Britain at any time, but we felt they were too risky to allow to wander around here. If they felt that being in detention here was preferable to being sent abroad (because they might get killed by rival factions), that was their decision, which they were free to reconsider at any time.
And we're also not much bothered if Royal Mail and the Inland Revenue and the local council and the biscuit factory can read our email and tap our phones. Perhaps we should be, but we're not. Terrorism, snooping, whatever - unless they actually overtly affect their daily lives, they're just not big issues for most people.
Conversely, people get enormously fussed about things which in the abstract are completely unimportant. I remember holding public debates over (a) whether we should intervene in Iraq (b) whether we should have identity cards and (c) whether Tesco should be allowed to open a big store on the local high street. Attendance? 50 for (a), 30 for (b), over 200 for (c). And (c) was the only one where people got really heated.
Yes, I know, you'll say what a good thing I'm no longer an MP with views like that - though I'm more concerned about issues like the balance between protection and liberty than most constituents were, and I'd be closer to you than you might think - I do realise that people get maltreated if we cut too many corners. But there are plenty of MPs on all sides who actually don't give these issues a serious thought, just like many voters.
Nick: I realise that you may not be bothered if the local council reads your email. But this did not happen by accident. The power to do so had to be given to it. So why should the local council be given such a power? Why do you or did you think it should be given such a power?
Miss Cyclefree, it's massively patronising to women to suggest they can only equal men by box-ticking rather than on merit. And does it apply in reverse, or is a 25% 'only' male shadow cabinet acceptable?
Anyone who proposes to build a new runway without public subsidy should be allowed to do so.
Presumably, to be consistent, you would of course leave them to purchase all the land they needed without any government interference in the form of compulsory purchase. By your reasoning, anyone who doesn't want their land to be used for a new airport should be allowed not to sell it, or to demand whatever price they like.
Those advocating 'ever closer union' need to understand that this means Greece's bills are paid by Germany. That's how a superstate HAS to work, it's a single country after all.
Even if it's a single country doesn't mean that all the bits of it are on the hook for the debts of all the other bits. American cities can go bankrupt without the central government stepping in.
Miss Cyclefree, it's massively patronising to women to suggest they can only equal men by box-ticking rather than on merit. And does it apply in reverse, or is a 25% 'only' male shadow cabinet acceptable?
Of course it is. But more importantly it's ignoring the very real problems that women, particularly women and girls in some communities still face, which needs rather more focus than it is getting, particularly from the party which is so keen to get votes from those communities.
I'm afraid that I think Labour's talk of gender equality to be so much hypocritical hot air while they are unwilling/afraid to challenge the very real misogyny amongst some of their voters and speaking at gender segregated meetings.
In-spite of the report I still think Gatwick will get it. Heathrow p*sses too many people/interest groups off, plus that bridge over the M25 is going to be a nightmare.
Why don't they ban freight from Heathrow? Send it up to East Midlands and link it with a rail freight terminal. That would free up some capacity at Heathrow wouldn't it?
Why not use Heathrow just for long haul and put all holiday flights from Stanstead, Gatwick (plus extra runway) & Luton. There are very good rail and coach connections to Gatwick and rail to Stanstead.
That would put BA out of the international game as they would no longer have a hub to get people from say, Rio to Budapest.
It's quite incredible that a former MP is so blase about the tens of thousands of people working at local councils being able to read one's emails. The political elite's unwaivering belief in the innate goodness of the state and all who work for it shows a deep lack of knowledge about history. In places like East Germany all sorts of local bureaucrats used their ability to spy on people for blackmail and abuse.
It's a fair point from your position, but the same majority of people (including me) who aren't really worried that someobody will murder them in Sainsbury also aren't really worried that people suspected of terrorism are detained for 90 days. Similarly, the deal on detention of suspected foreign terrorists seemed to me fair enough - they could leave Britain at any time, but we felt they were too risky to allow to wander around here. If they felt that being in detention here was preferable to being sent abroad (because they might get killed by rival factions), that was their decision, which they were free to reconsider at any time.
Nick: I realise that you may not be bothered if the local council reads your email. But this did not happen by accident. The power to do so had to be given to it. So why should the local council be given such a power? Why do you or did you think it should be given such a power?
Firstly, people are not fussed about all sorts of things until it turns around and bites them on the arse, and then its usually too late. That doesn't make it a good idea.
Secondly, people are not fussed about things because the great and the good go out of their way to not explain the implications to them. They might be un-fussed about their email being read by the local council. But trying asking them instead if they would like Social Services reading their emails with their mistress, or listening in to their arguments with their wives or their communications with their doctors, or HMRC reading emails to their accountant, or the CPS reading emails to their lawyer, or RIPA powers being used to force journalists to reveal their sources, or spy on parents choice of schools, of which rubbish bins there were using and you might find them a little more concerned.
Those advocating 'ever closer union' need to understand that this means Greece's bills are paid by Germany. That's how a superstate HAS to work, it's a single country after all.
Even if it's a single country doesn't mean that all the bits of it are on the hook for the debts of all the other bits. American cities can go bankrupt without the central government stepping in.
That's a city, not a state.
But in any case, it had nothing like the same ramifications, the hospitals continued to function, the schools still opened, the police and fire services were still paid.
The oddest one on the list for me is unemployment. Britain's employment statistics are spectacularly even bafflingly good. At what point will 18% of the public decide that it's not one of the top three issues facing Britain?
I think that my top three would be climate change, productivity and housing.
If I could wear that at school in summer then the bloody Mayor of London can now.
And, as Rob Lowe explained, you can't take a politician seriously unless he's in a short and tie [and yes, Cameron's sometimes abandonment of said tie is rubbish].
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
The logic that we should spend all sorts of public money to make one big 'global player' in an industry was tried to death in the 1970s and ended up with inefficient behemoths like British Leyland dragging the whole sector down. What we need is not a 'bigger is better' approach but a 'competition is better' one, with several hub airports, starting with Gatwick being #2.
Comments
Can @GeoffM confirm it still does?
It's madness all around IMHO.
http://www.weirdworldfacts.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/gibraltar-airport-1.jpg
On Heathrow. So instead of just annoying the people who live around Heathrow, they've decided to annoy everyone in the South East who has to use that part of the M25.
Smart Politics
The northwest option clearly shows a tunnel on the maps from Heathrow's website:
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/3R-masterplan-northwest_LHR.pdf
http://www.heathrowairport.com/static/HeathrowAboutUs/Downloads/PDF/3R-masterplan-northwest-potential-optimisation_LHR.pdf
Gatwick is a terrible place for an airport, to get there is a massive pain.
Heathrow also in a terrible place, but better than Gatwick
Why was Stansted not considered? And As i live really close and travel for work a lot I would love it. Also would love writing in support to the local paper and attacking all my NIMBY neighbours...
Other things to note: the report recommends an end to night flights (23.30 to 06.00) and the government to state categorically via legislation that there will be no fourth runway at Heathrow.
As capacity is scheduled to beat the third runway before 2050, expect these assurances to not be worth much.
So far however, it seems to me that Gatwick delivers much better bang-for-the-buck; i.e. increased capacity for price. I'll need to read further to see if that's fully correct.
Breaking News: Most people don't. Most people would have to schlep round the M25 to get to gatwick!
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ixTloAiaAFM
Greece is the word and turning a crisis into a Drachma threads were personal high points.
Conducted under AV of course.
These powers have been used for such essential matters of national security as dog fouling, unlawful parking, and determining if parents live inside a school catchment area. This government has improved this situation slightly with recent laws, but can't be surprised people look on the possibility of wholesale capture of their internet usage with a less than enthusiastic air, since they have very little trust that only those people involved in the defence of the realm will have access to it.
But seeing as it's a non runner, Heathrow's location crucially to the west of London means it is easier to get to for the average person by population somewhere between Nuneaton and Leicester.
As it is, ISIS seems to be running out of people to execute and bizarre ways to do it. As far as I can see it is making up executable offences as it goes along and choosing methods from a Strictly Islamic State's Got The X-Factor Contest (probably hosted by a smarmy swarthy man in a black T-shirt).
In short, its methods are self defeating. We become inured to terrorism and recognise innately that these people are beyond reason. In the Middle Ages we got used to cholera plague and London burning down on a regular basis.
A civil war (which is what is going on in the middle east) is different to terrorism. A civil war ends when one side has been crushed and when both sides are shattered emaciated and sickened by their consequential losses. At the end of a civil war both sides have to carry on living together.
There's loads of runways over roads around the world, there's definitely no roads over runways anywhere, with bloody good reason!!!!!!
Of course, it'll be a bit scary for the drivers, but it'll be INCREDIBLY COOL.
http://goo.gl/WPeHN7
"Local issues" sums it up I think.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RIvbm2ZlsnQ
Why don't they ban freight from Heathrow? Send it up to East Midlands and link it with a rail freight terminal. That would free up some capacity at Heathrow wouldn't it?
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-fate-of-trade-unions-and-our-party-is-inextricably-linked/ by J Corbyn
http://labourlist.org/2015/07/the-public-are-fed-up-of-carbon-copy-politicians-why-im-backing-andy/ by Heidi Alexander MP
Or even better: just develop the rubber-bed landings that were experimented with during the 1050s:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=f7Lu6LEQ0zo
We - Britain, us, the tories, Cameron - recognise that and do not want to be will not be part of such closer union and associated monetary fiscal and political controls. Thats why we need to renegotiate to get the deal that protects us from Eurozone hegemony within the EU. This was always going to happen from the moment we did not join the Euro. I think we have a good chance to get something meaningful. If we do not than it's likely we will be in an EEA orbit outside the EU rather than a similar orbit within the EU.
@calum the old HK airport at Kai Tak was fantastic, especially on a windy day! Plenty of videos of planes scraping wingtips, tails and some hairy go-arounds (including a French Concorde) if one wishes to spend a whole day on Youtube.
Another issue for the TPE is that the proposed HS3 scheme might change what will need to be electrified, although that seems like a slightly odd excuse.
The EZ either has to behave much more like one country, with common tax rates, benefits payments, pensions and transfer payments, or the Euro will lurch from crisis to crisis in the years to come.
And apparently it is limited to 5,800 flights a year:
http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise/heathrow-operations/night-flights
As regular readers will know, I'm pretty much in favour of a clean and fresh approach of a new airport, which would probably be in the Thames Estuary. Given Instanbul is building a six-runway airport, even an expanded LHR will not be able to compete:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Istanbul_New_Airport
(Although given the problems on the Marmaray Project, we should not assume it will be built as planned).
Surely this should be above housing and education at least
Glad to see you are back alive and well and typing BTW.
I've always had a rule (which I agree does not apply to Tunisia, but it conditions my decisions) that said 'Never holiday in a country with a demilitarised zone'.
https://twitter.com/philipjcowley/status/616158545617256448
It'd be nice if we had more 'proper' engineers in parliament.
The same problems are being seen all around the developed world, there was massive infrastructure investment after WWII and it's all getting rather old now. In the US they've teams of military engineers going around keeping roads open when bridges are condemned or even collapse!
Whelks, Waffles and Crazy Golf!
I think I have been spending too much time with TSE found it all a bit too "working class" for my tastes. I think I must be turning into a retired class snob.
Arcades full of gunfire entertainment a bit too scary too.
Other than that it was lovely
"We want a re-election - Get the Conservatives out!!...
... The country is supposed to be a democratic country, the results from the election are raising many questions within society. I have seen very few conservative fans so how did they get a majority. If they received their votes and won the election legitimately then they should not objected to a re-election!"
https://you.38degrees.org.uk/petitions/we-want-a-re-election-get-the-conservatives-out
Don't like the result, so they question the fairness and legitimacy of a system they were more than happy with, when Labour were winning elections.
And we're also not much bothered if Royal Mail and the Inland Revenue and the local council and the biscuit factory can read our email and tap our phones. Perhaps we should be, but we're not. Terrorism, snooping, whatever - unless they actually overtly affect their daily lives, they're just not big issues for most people.
Conversely, people get enormously fussed about things which in the abstract are completely unimportant. I remember holding public debates over (a) whether we should intervene in Iraq (b) whether we should have identity cards and (c) whether Tesco should be allowed to open a big store on the local high street. Attendance? 50 for (a), 30 for (b), over 200 for (c). And (c) was the only one where people got really heated.
Yes, I know, you'll say what a good thing I'm no longer an MP with views like that - though I'm more concerned about issues like the balance between protection and liberty than most constituents were, and I'd be closer to you than you might think - I do realise that people get maltreated if we cut too many corners. But there are plenty of MPs on all sides who actually don't give these issues a serious thought, just like many voters.
This was the small one.
'I may have missed this but has anyone in Labour come up with any sort of coherent thought about how to address the ISIL threat at home and/or a response to Cameron's speech on extremism?'
All four Labour leadership candidates agreed on Friday for gender equality in future shadow cabinets.
Must be the Sun
The ins and outs are complicated, of course, but the broad picture is not of the "glorious sunlit uplands" that was promised.
http://emojipedia.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/04/1f4a9-google-android.png.pagespeed.ce.T0TjzDu9Zb.png
I'm afraid that I think Labour's talk of gender equality to be so much hypocritical hot air while they are unwilling/afraid to challenge the very real misogyny amongst some of their voters and speaking at gender segregated meetings.
How about being competent to do the job?
Secondly, people are not fussed about things because the great and the good go out of their way to not explain the implications to them. They might be un-fussed about their email being read by the local council. But trying asking them instead if they would like Social Services reading their emails with their mistress, or listening in to their arguments with their wives or their communications with their doctors, or HMRC reading emails to their accountant, or the CPS reading emails to their lawyer, or RIPA powers being used to force journalists to reveal their sources, or spy on parents choice of schools, of which rubbish bins there were using and you might find them a little more concerned.
See for example http://www.lawgazette.co.uk/law/practice-points/grim-ripa-takes-scythe-to-confidentiality/5044309.fullarticle
I don't know what it is about this subject which makes so many people completely lose their marbles.
But in any case, it had nothing like the same ramifications, the hospitals continued to function, the schools still opened, the police and fire services were still paid.
Suits and Ties order of the day even in 35 degree heat?
I think that my top three would be climate change, productivity and housing.
If I could wear that at school in summer then the bloody Mayor of London can now.
And, as Rob Lowe explained, you can't take a politician seriously unless he's in a short and tie [and yes, Cameron's sometimes abandonment of said tie is rubbish].