#586
jerumagrinberga , Sep 10, 2012 11:36 am
Mar 13, 2014Quote:
I agree - this should be removed from the political sphere, because politicians have shown themselves incapable of providing a solution. Just as in the US, where they set up a committee to decide which military bases should be closed, a similar organization/committee should be appointed, and the legislation authorizing it should make it immune from legal delays.Originally Posted by Jenbel
That's the problem the IPC was meant to solve - to remove overdue local influence from schemes of national importance. Of course the Coalition reversed that immediately as soon as they took office and championed localism - and that meant that nationally important schemes are now held up as political footballs
#587
Quote:
My winner on causing as much problem as possible is going to Germany at the moment.Originally Posted by jerumagrinberga
I agree - this should be removed from the political sphere, because politicians have shown themselves incapable of providing a solution. Just as in the US, where they set up a committee to decide which military bases should be closed, a similar organization/committee should be appointed, and the legislation authorizing it should make it immune from legal delays.
#588
Quote:
Isn't that exactly what has been done?Originally Posted by jerumagrinberga
Just as in the US, where they set up a committee to decide which military bases should be closed, a similar organization/committee should be appointed
UK Government Announces New Airports Commission
#589
Tory Thinktank says 4 runways at Heathrow but move them 3km to the west.
Boris accuses Government of risking 'economic catastrophe' over third runway
Whilst Boris is right about government dithering Policy Exchange make the valid point that Heathrow is where the people who use it are and they can't be easily moved to the back end of beyond
Boris accuses Government of risking 'economic catastrophe' over third runway
Whilst Boris is right about government dithering Policy Exchange make the valid point that Heathrow is where the people who use it are and they can't be easily moved to the back end of beyond
#590
Quote:
Boris accuses Government of risking 'economic catastrophe' over third runway
Whilst Boris is right about government dithering Policy Exchange make the valid point that Heathrow is where the people who use it are and they can't be easily moved to the back end of beyond
Boris has said, I read in the Standard last night, that Boris Island won't be that expensive only costing £60bn in total Originally Posted by alanR
Tory Thinktank says 4 runways at Heathrow but move them 3km to the west.Boris accuses Government of risking 'economic catastrophe' over third runway
Whilst Boris is right about government dithering Policy Exchange make the valid point that Heathrow is where the people who use it are and they can't be easily moved to the back end of beyond
. Which is £30bn for the airport (paid for by sovereign wealth funds) and £30bn for the infrastructure (paid for by the UK taxpayer 
)
#591
Littlegirl , Oct 5, 2012 10:05 am
Quote:
. Which is £30bn for the airport (paid for by sovereign wealth funds) and £30bn for the infrastructure (paid for by the UK taxpayer )
Let's just pray that he never gets to be leader of the conservatives or pm!Originally Posted by Jimmie76
Boris has said, I read in the Standard last night, that Boris Island won't be that expensive only costing £60bn in total . Which is £30bn for the airport (paid for by sovereign wealth funds) and £30bn for the infrastructure (paid for by the UK taxpayer )
#592
Quote:
)
Does that include the costs of relocating the 80,000 people and their families - along with the people dependent on them like shopkeepers, teachers, nurses ,etc as well the companies who moved to the west side of London because it was where the main UK airport was.Originally Posted by Jimmie76
£30bn for the infrastructure (paid for by the UK taxpayer )
#593
Just so, alanR ... those substantial 'peripheral issues' never seem to come into the discussion. If anything, those aspects you mention (and probably some others) are probably a bigger potential problem than the distant sound of an airliner on approach at 2,500 FT over London and the western fringes.
#594
Littlegirl , Oct 5, 2012 1:51 pm
Quote:
It is quite interesting how some local MPs have changed their tune since Boris Island has popped it's head up.Originally Posted by T8191
Just so, alanR ... those substantial 'peripheral issues' never seem to come into the discussion. If anything, those aspects you mention (and probably some others) are probably a bigger potential problem than the distant sound of an airliner on approach at 2,500 FT over London and the western fringes.
I wrote to my MP Terresa May to remind her of the job losses in the area that would affect her constituency, if the airport was to move and her reply indicates a total turnaround in her willingness to consider all options.
Not so long ago she was very against a third runway but the thought of losing her biggest employer in the area and the reason many companies are located in her constituency seems to have focussed her mind!
#595
Quote:
No idea but if you want my opinion, no it doesn't Originally Posted by alanR
Does that include the costs of relocating the 80,000 people and their families - along with the people dependent on them like shopkeepers, teachers, nurses ,etc as well the companies who moved to the west side of London because it was where the main UK airport was.
that's probably not going to come cheap and assuming a figure of £100,000 per person (allowing for the resale of homes etc. elsewhere) that's getting into serious money. It probably also assumes that everything runs smoothly comes in on time and on budget which is always guaranteed right.
#596
Quote:
I wrote to my MP Terresa May to remind her of the job losses in the area that would affect her constituency, if the airport was to move and her reply indicates a total turnaround in her willingness to consider all options.
Not so long ago she was very against a third runway but the thought of losing her biggest employer in the area and the reason many companies are located in her constituency seems to have focussed her mind!
Now that is a surprise. Originally Posted by Littlegirl
It is quite interesting how some local MPs have changed their tune since Boris Island has popped it's head up.I wrote to my MP Terresa May to remind her of the job losses in the area that would affect her constituency, if the airport was to move and her reply indicates a total turnaround in her willingness to consider all options.
Not so long ago she was very against a third runway but the thought of losing her biggest employer in the area and the reason many companies are located in her constituency seems to have focussed her mind!
#597
Littlegirl , Oct 6, 2012 4:28 pm
Quote:
that's probably not going to come cheap and assuming a figure of £100,000 per person (allowing for the resale of homes etc. elsewhere) that's getting into serious money. It probably also assumes that everything runs smoothly comes in on time and on budget which is always guaranteed right.
I wish I could put a bet on Boris Island never happening.Originally Posted by Jimmie76
No idea but if you want my opinion, no it doesn't that's probably not going to come cheap and assuming a figure of £100,000 per person (allowing for the resale of homes etc. elsewhere) that's getting into serious money. It probably also assumes that everything runs smoothly comes in on time and on budget which is always guaranteed right.
In fact I think it is making him look like a bit of a maverick and doing him a lot of damage as it really does seem that he is obsessed with an idea that looks completely impossible for many different reasons; birds, infrastructure, lack of airline willingness etc.etc.
The latest think tank is suggesting putting 4 new LHR runways near the M25 and putting some of the motorway in a tunnel underneath and moving a reservoir. Although that sounds expensive, it's probably a lot cheaper than Boris Island and in the right place at least!
#598
GregWTravels , Oct 7, 2012 2:20 am
Quote:
Here's an article written by the author of the report - Tim Leunig, chief economist at CentreForum, which includes a link to the report and a picture.Originally Posted by alanR
Tory Thinktank says 4 runways at Heathrow but move them 3km to the west.
When I read about moving the runways west, I just couldn't picture what they meant? Surely there are large reservoirs. Apparently he suggests building over top of the M25 and the Wraysbury Reservoir. Hmmm. Not sure that strikes me as practical.
Greg
#600
So many aspects ... I'll just pick one for starters.
Moving the runways a mile or so west (building a new airport? Gate A-10 gets busier?) surely does little for noise over London, especially the leafy western parts?
Deferring to our resident LHR ATCOs, IIRC the instrument approaches to 27L/R are at 2,500 ft until glide path intercept. Aircraft will therefore still be at 2,500 over all those affluent areas populated by Nimbys.
Moving the runways a mile or so west (building a new airport? Gate A-10 gets busier?) surely does little for noise over London, especially the leafy western parts?
Deferring to our resident LHR ATCOs, IIRC the instrument approaches to 27L/R are at 2,500 ft until glide path intercept. Aircraft will therefore still be at 2,500 over all those affluent areas populated by Nimbys.