UK wants to raze 783 London homes to expand Heathrow airport

[SheungWan]

55 minutes ago, 3NUMBAS said:

The homes raised will be in Hounslow and bedfont inhabited by Indians .and migrants

 

The infrastructure is overloaded .the tube to HR is overloaded and roads in the area are already blocked 

 

The tube to/from the airport is OK. I use it. And as for overloading, Crossrail is scheduled to open in 2018 and that will connect with Heathrow. Not to forget the Heathrow Express which is rather expensive I must admit but fast and effective.

[Dipterocarp]

Kansai (Osaka) , Hong Kong, Narita (Tokyo) are all built on reclaimed land at sea. They function well because they have good fast transport links to the airport.

You must be thinking of Haneda (Tokyo) airport. Narita airport is miles from the sea. It was started when the socialist/communist movement was still strong on what had been farmland. Large protests over the years, violence, opposition groups clinging to small parcels of land etc. So eventually the Japanese government stopped trying to expand the runway complex original plan was for 5 runways. Still only have two, one not as long as they planned. Company I used to work for did a ton of electrical engineering work there.

[JAG]

On 26/10/2016 at 10:37 PM, bangon04 said:

" after years (decades, I believe) of discussion, study and outrage over the building of the first full runway in the southeast of the country since World War II.  " Pathetic.......

 

As other posters have mentioned - a significant proportion of Heathrow congestion is CARGO traffic. There is an obvious argument to move the cargo operation to somewhere else - freeing up the slots for passenger "hub" use.

Yes Heathrow handles (and acts as a hub for) an awful lot of cargo traffic.

Much of which is carried in the holds of passenger flights.

[thaibeachlovers]

5 hours ago, 7by7 said:

 

 

Surely the main reason why people travel by air is speed.

 

 

Airliners generally travel at around 500 to 600 mph.

 

London to Bangkok at 87 mph or 500mph; I know which I would choose!

 

I am only a layman, so perhaps you could give us an estimate of when airships will routinely be capable of these sorts of speeds

 

 

I must admit that I don't know what 'anti GW policies' are; but I assume you mean policies to reduce car use.

 

Many people still use their car to commute into London; despite the congestion charge.

 

Even if that money is spent and more people commute by train, there is still the problem of getting them to their final destination once they have arrived in London. Both the Tube and the buses are already operating at over capacity during the peak hours; legal capacity in the case of many buses!

 

I am not saying these problems are insurmountable. But solving them will be expensive and take many years.

 

Would you ban cars and force people onto a public transport system which is already at breaking point while the work is carried out; or would you do the work first?

 

 

 

Quote edited for brevity

 

Surely the main reason why people travel by air is speed.

Certainly as compared to ships, mass tourism would never have been possible without the aeroplane. However, most would, I'm sure, accept a few hours longer if the travel was more comfortable than present day cattle class. eg if people could have train style bunk beds to sleep in, spending 5 or 6 hours longer from UK to LOS would be acceptable, and that would be possible, IMO, on airships if they can be developed to their full potential. An airship doesn't have to look like the Bum. It could be a flying wing. It just needs a method of providing lift while not moving.

 

Airliners generally travel at around 500 to 600 mph.

London to Bangkok at 87 mph or 500mph; I know which I would choose!

Maglev trains have reached 375 mph, and given enough money for research, will do better ( or perhaps a completely different mode of propulsion ) in the time it takes before the third runway has a plane take off from it.

 

I am only a layman, so perhaps you could give us an estimate of when airships will routinely be capable of these sorts of speeds

That would depend entirely on how much money and effort is used to develop them.

 

I must admit that I don't know what 'anti GW policies' are; but I assume you mean policies to reduce car use.

Anti global warming policies that the government has signed up to implement. The fastest way to make a difference is to ban private cars in cities and mass air travel.

 

Many people still use their car to commute into London; despite the congestion charge.

Not if they are banned.

 

Even if that money is spent and more people commute by train, there is still the problem of getting them to their final destination once they have arrived in London. Both the Tube and the buses are already operating at over capacity during the peak hours; legal capacity in the case of many buses!

Think outside the box. Skytran is under development as you read this- google it.

 

I am not saying these problems are insurmountable. But solving them will be expensive and take many years.

Your government has committed to reducing carbon. Yes, they will tax everyone to the max to do something about it. America mobilized to defeat the Nazis, they can do the same to reduce carbon.

 

Would you ban cars and force people onto a public transport system

Yes. Cars are the curse of modern city life. Without cars, public transport would run smoothly and efficiently. It's not as though we have always had cars. People used to use bicycles, like in China under Mao.

which is already at breaking point while the work is carried out; or would you do the work first?

I'd give it 6 months to buy enough buses to do the job and educate people. Once cars are banned, there will be plenty of room on city roads to run as many as one wants.

Only applies to cities and large towns of course.

 

 

 

[bangon04]

20 hours ago, Dipterocarp said:

You must be thinking of Haneda (Tokyo) airport. Narita airport is miles from the sea. It was started when the socialist/communist movement was still strong on what had been farmland. Large protests over the years, violence, opposition groups clinging to small parcels of land etc. So eventually the Japanese government stopped trying to expand the runway complex original plan was for 5 runways. Still only have two, one not as long as they planned. Company I used to work for did a ton of electrical engineering work there.

oops - I was probably meaning to type Changi (Singapore) which i think is also on a large plot of reclaimed land, and getting bigger.

While on the subject - Kansai is probably not a great example because the dangers of subsidence have been underestimated during construction.

[thaibeachlovers]

On 29 ตุลาคม 2559 at 5:17 PM, bangon04 said:

oops - I was probably meaning to type Changi (Singapore) which i think is also on a large plot of reclaimed land, and getting bigger.

While on the subject - Kansai is probably not a great example because the dangers of subsidence have been underestimated during construction.

They discovered how to avoid subsidence when building the World in Dubai.

 

Singapore has vast amounts of reclaimed land. They don't appear to have problems with subsidence. Tell me if I'm wrong.

[Mosha]

Just under half of complaints about noise that Heathrow received between July and September this year, came from 10 people.

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-england-37803205

Sent from my SMART_4G_Speedy_5inch using Tapatalk

[SaintLouisBlues]

3 minutes ago, Mosha said:

Just under half of complaints about noise that Heathrow received between July and September this year, came from 10 people.

Did they all belong to TV?