I've posted this before - the original M25 plans had a very wide central reserve as a LHR-LGW rail link was planned to run in the middle, much like how the AMS - City rail link runs between the carriageways of the A4.

It got cancelled though by Thatcher's government when anything rail was a dirty word. Her government firmly believed rail would slowly die and the car would be king. I can remember her government scorning the French for their focus on HS rail and nuclear power. How times have changed!

I've also posted this before - my thoughts are it sadly probably will take a major accident over London before there is a general consensus to develop a wholly new airport with the normal approach paths not being right over the city.

Historically most radical changes in transportation are sadly brought about by accidents - you only have to look at the early DC10 problems as an example, CVRs becoming mandatory following the Staines Trident crash in 1972, secured cockpit doors following 9/11, Concorde's kevlar lined fuel tanks, big focus on CRM after Tenerife in 1977 etc etc. Even though in all those cases the risks and safety benefits of change were known about before the incidents....but it took an actual incident for people to wake up and make the changes.

Other ones that spring to mind are the changes mandated after Ladbroke Grove, Clapham and Hatfield on the UK railways and the 1987 Townsend Thoreson ferry disaster. The risks were known about....but it took a loss-of-life incident to make the change.

I do wonder if BA038 had come down in a populated area of London whether there would be more of a clamour to look at a brand new London airport away from centres of population?

It is due to take effect around about now. I had in my head next week, but I could have the date wrong.

It's today, in England only. The presumption in favour of sustainable development. The usual collection of nimbies from the CPRE and the like on R4 this morning.

Quite right.

It's already happened in 1992 at Bilmer, Amsterdam:

http://www.911review.org/Wget/www.ne...report-125.jpg

It was an El Al cargo 747, and the apartment block wasn't full of very affluent people. A similar event in central London would have calls for LHR to be shut and a knee-jerk reaction for a new airport.

The noise maps are here, showing who is affected and how.

http://www.heathrowairport.com/noise...-tracking-maps

When you look at the number of people affected, into millions. The idea of another runway goes away.

Ah no, that's the normal planning system. I'm talking about the IPC stream - the schemes counted as being of strategic national importance. They are not covered by the changes in the general planning which come into force today, but have their own arrangements (in part because there are a number of very large schemes which were expecting to be brought forward under the IPC, but where the goal posts were moved to change who would assess their application - changing the planning system can unfairly disadvantage schemes which are in preparation, because it can take 2-3 years to gather the data required to support the scheme)

And the NIMBYs have a major point on this. Under the guise of giving local people more control over planning applications, making the presumption towards development actually gives them a lot less control than they had previously. It's not a system I'd want to live in.

Possibly. Of course, any knee-jerk reaction for a new airport would have to remember that the new airport would have to be in a safe location too.

And btw, we have had an incident in the UK where a plane crashed into a populated area, killing residents. I don't remember any calls for closure of LHR then.

Simple measures such as using alternation between 6-7am would bring huge relief to hundreds of thousands of people but are not considered by BAA to max out income from the red-eyes. If there is a time when people really need alternation is from 5.30am to 7am, but that's exactly when alternation is not operational.

I agree with previous comments. Sadly in this country things happen only after accidents take place and basic probability states that if we keep it there for the foreseeable future there will be one. It's a question of when not of if. Maybe that's a price worth paying, but it should be considered in the decision making process.

The problem is that even if a plane crashed today at LHR and the airport was closed, which cause much complaint from people. Then we select a new location for a bigger airport. But with trains and planes brings jobs and people. After 10 years, people will forget about the minor accident and say that the new aircraft is safer and better. So houses will be built near to the airport again. The people of Sipson love living next door to an airport, they are upset with the potential move.

wobbly wings

I don't believe I ever expressed an opinion on 'Boris's suggestion'.

Absolutely. Sorry; that's a misunderstanding. I am well aware you didn't and I had no intention of attributing that to you. I was using "you" in general terms in the plural sense, given the usual tone of the board is against any relocation of LHR. Apologies if I was not clear with respect to that.

If anything I am in full admiration for 118.50!

Ha! No problem!.......although I would have to move house and the cats have just got used to where we live now!:D

Nice, I'm right in the middle of the yellow bit (Southgate) and I often see aircraft passing over my back garden, I wouldn't say I'm "affected" in the slightest.

In fact I quite enjoy watching them pass by!

As they get lower I suppose it could cause some noise, but where I am they are flying high enough that I hardly hear them at all.

It's really not a problem!

Somebody also did some research into noise around airports and showed that a constant background noise was more tolerable than one in which the noise level changed or stopped/started etc. So someplace like Southhampton may actually have more noise issues because of irregular movements - at LHR and LGW where it is pretty constant, humans are better able to ignore it. Well, until Concorde goes over, and then everybody notices the noise again.

That's true. I live very close to a main railway line and it is rare for my sleep to be disturbed by trains (in fact I notice more when they are not running). When my parents come to stay with me they are disturbed by 'my' trains.

They also live close to a railway line so they are used to their trains but when I go and stay with them I get disturbed by their trains.

They also live fairly close to Teesside Airport and the flights are not that frequent so when a plane does go over it is more noticable.

As to plane crashes I understand that the worst case emergency planning scenario about a plane crash in London is not that it happens at Heathrow but a mid air colision over Waterloo station during the morning rush hour.