Robin9 wrote:
Neil Williams;136900 Wrote:
Robin9 wrote:
-
You haven't explained why you believe "the most sensible option" is
"expanding Stansted and closing Heathrow or at least relegating it to
a
smaller operation." Why and how would that be better than the present
situation?-
Because it's in the middle of farmland, which means it can easily be
expanded substantially (4 or even 6 runways?) and is connected directly
to
the City of London by a railway line with a station under the terminal
which could be upgraded further, unlike LHR which is connected to
Paddington which isn't really where anyone wants to go.
IOW, London could gain a properly designed super-Schiphol rather than
the hotch potch that an upgraded LHR will be.
Neil
--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK. Put first name before the at to
reply.
You seem to feel that farm land has no value. Not many will agree with
that,
least of all the peope who live near Stansted and who have made clear
their intense opposition to any expansion.
The rail line from Stansted to Liverpool Street is not Britain's leading
rail route
and already has capacity problems in the London area. I doubt if more
international travellers want to be in the Liverpool Street area than in
the Paddington area so that argument has minimal validity.
In any case, long before any airport expansion, Heathrow will have regular,
direct, high capacity rail connections to West London (Ealing), the West
End, City, Stratford, Canary Wharf and ExCel. It may also get regular,
direct rail connections to Slough and Reading and perhaps Staines as well.
Paddington is a red herring.