Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

In message
-sept
ember.org, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).
--
Roland Perry

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

wrote in message ...
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 14:12:06 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
tim... wrote:


wrote in message
...
On Fri, 08 Jun 2018 12:11:01 +0100
Recliner wrote:
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 09:00:05 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
That depends if the traffic levels remained the same or whether
people
who
would have driven find an alternative instead. I was in Nantes last
week
and
while it was a PITA navigating the car through all the one way
systems
and
blocked off roads in the centre, once you were on foot it was very
pleasent
with the pedestrianised and restricted streets with just trams and
buses
passing by and not much other traffic apart from occasional delivery
vehicles.
People adapt.

I suppose it's the usual thing: those who will (or think they will) be
adversely affected know who they are in advance, and complain loudly.
Those who may in the future benefit from the change don't know they
might, and don't applaud loudly. In particular, future tourists don't
get a vote.

True. Thats where politicians are supposed to come however and look to
the
common good. Sadly with the spineless pillocks in this country in all
parties
there's little chance of it happening. Unless its $14 billion being
flung
at
the spanish owner of heathrow of course

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply
no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government
will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in
the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted,
Luton,

all filling up

admittedly a second runway at any of these would be easier and much cheaper,
whilst being almost as useful.


London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which
is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.

because next to no-one wants to fly from there

three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.

It's pointless trying again.

tim

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).

I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

Recliner wrote on 08 Jun 2018 at 20:03 ...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).

I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.

As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or viaduct, and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in order to clear the motorway. Such gradients on runways are not uncommon, with Birmingham being a notable example (see for example https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP35ULU6IcQ )
--
Richard J.
(to email me, swap 'uk' and 'yon' in address)

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 08 Jun 2018 at 20:03 ...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept
ember.org, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).

I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.

As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or viaduct,
and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in order to clear
the motorway. Such gradients on runways are not uncommon, with
Birmingham being a notable example (see for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP35ULU6IcQ )

That's one of the possibilities. There are several competing proposals.

The airlines are afraid that HAL will go for the most expensive option, as
that allows it to charge them more, so they're campaigning for a cheaper
option, such as the viaduct runway over an undisturbed M25, and no new
terminal.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 09/06/2018 00:32, Richard J. wrote:
Recliner wrote on 08 Jun 2018 at 20:03 ...
Roland Perry wrote:
In message
-sept

ember.org, at 14:12:06 on Fri, 8 Jun 2018, Recliner
remarked:

I thought the whole idea of airport expansion was that the airport was
expected to pay for it themselves

They a the expansion will be privately funded by HAL, ultimately
funded
by airline access charges (currently around £20/passenger, but which
may
rise). But TfL has warned that HAL may not be so willing to pay for
infrastructure and public transport upgrades outside the airport.

Are HAL paying the whole cost of the M25 tunnel (after the runway's
finished, it'll be within the airport's footprint).

I'm not sure. It's not even clear if there will be a tunnel.

As I understand it, the runway will cross the M25 on a bridge or
viaduct, and will have a slight uphill gradient towards the west in
order to clear the motorway.Â* Such gradients on runways are not
uncommon, with Birmingham being a notable example (see for example
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lP35ULU6IcQ )

Why not take it to its extreme and follow the example of aircraft
carriers and have a ski jump at the end? Would make takeoff more
exciting, but I can see it may cause some problems for landing.

Maybe take the lead from aircraft carriers again and have some kind of
arrestor wire arrangement on a short piece of runway?

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 16:41:14 +0100
"tim..." wrote:
wrote in message ...
Sure, and Porcine Airlines will be the first flight out. There is simply
no
way they can raise that sort of money on the open market, the government
will
be coughing up if they want it finished. And thats before you factor in
the
economic chaos that the delays on the M25 caused by putting it in a tunnel
will create. All because some idiots believed the spin that we don't have
enough runways in the SE. Obviously nobody mentioned Gatwick, Stansted,
Luton,

all filling up

Hardly. Look at flightradar24 to see the stream of planes not landing at
Luton.

London City and Southend to them. And then there's Marsden in kent which
is
soon to be turned into a housing estate. Go figure.

because next to no-one wants to fly from there

three attempts to encourage people to do so have failed.

It's pointless trying again.

Actually I got the name wrong, its Manston, not marsden, but doesn't matter.

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it. Theres a rail line spitting distance from Manston which
could easily have a short branch line built to the airport just as happened at
Stansted and it would be a lot cheaper than any new runway at any london
airport, never mind heathrow. Unless you have a car you can't get to Manston
yet those in power throw their hands up and say "Look, no one uses it!". Well
quelle surprise.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On 11/06/2018 09:35, wrote:

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.

This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.


--
Tciao for Now!

John.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:15:01 +0100
John Williamson wrote:
On 11/06/2018 09:35, wrote:

No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and
a motorway going to it.

For about half the passengers who fly in to and out of Heathrow, the
road and rail links outside the airport don't matter, as they fly in
from one airport, possibly change terminals, and fly out to another one.

Which means there's even less reason not to use Manston.

This is the target audience for expansion, as Heathrow is the biggest
hub airport in Europe, and has a wider choice of international
destinations than any other. They are trying to keep their lead in this
over Frankfurt, Charles de Gaulle and Schiphol.

And a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc. The fact that the cabinet has been suckered into
approving the new runway demonstrates - if we didn't know already - what a dim
bunch of 2nd raters they are.

Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
 

In message , at 10:53:46 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked:

a hub airport brings very little to the UK other than pollution and
profit for Heathrow Plc.

It brings a great deal of employment (on the airport and off it).

It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate,
available to locals to fly on.
--
Roland Perry