|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
tim... wrote:
https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...-a8388791.html It's like the abandoned West London tram: the potential benefits to medium distance travellers are outweighed by the real disbenefits to the locals who will suffer from the displaced traffic. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 08:42:31 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote: tim... wrote: https://www.independent.co.uk/news/u...estrianisation london-sadiq-khan-westminster-council-scrapped-a8388791.html It's like the abandoned West London tram: the potential benefits to medium distance travellers are outweighed by the real disbenefits to the locals who will suffer from the displaced traffic. 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. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
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 - some nice non exec directorships no doubt on the cards for various members of the cabinet in the future. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 08/06/2018 12:37, wrote:
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 - some nice non exec directorships no doubt on the cards for various members of the cabinet in the future. I recently took part in a walk around my local area with some representatives from the council and other interested residents who were trying to put together a plan to improve air quality, improve the street scene and reduce rat running and so on. The council were actually very reasonable and tolerant, but a lot of the local residents seem to take the view that they needed a private motorway straight to their front door, and any level of inconvenience (we're talking seconds or maybe driving 200m extra) was utterly unacceptable even if it reduced the traffic outside their homes (and the fumes in their lungs etc) by a significant proportion. They also had their own pet issues and were unable to listen to reason over why the design of e.g. lighting on private property was not in the remit of the particular council personnel who were there. In the face of such vehement opposition I can see why local officialdom backs down and accepts the view of the shouty mob. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
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 |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
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. Oh, Heathrow doesn't have a Spanish owner. It's a multinational consortium. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
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, 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. Oh, Heathrow doesn't have a Spanish owner. It's a multinational consortium. Ferrovial are Spanish and none of the rest of them arn't British either so it really makes little odds. Any profit heads off out of the country. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Fri, 8 Jun 2018 13:01:40 +0100
Someone Somewhere wrote: motorway straight to their front door, and any level of inconvenience (we're talking seconds or maybe driving 200m extra) was utterly unacceptable even if it reduced the traffic outside their homes (and the fumes in their lungs etc) by a significant proportion. Not SUV drivers by any chance? They also had their own pet issues and were unable to listen to reason over why the design of e.g. lighting on private property was not in the remit of the particular council personnel who were there. Some people just love the sound of their own voices and think their opinions are more important than everyone elses. |
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
|
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 |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
wrote in message ... 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. OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's still filling up 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. I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport in "Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest corner(s) of the country 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. Agreed It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be easier than building a rail spur) But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal. That's just too far 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. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: 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). Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs. It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate, available to locals to fly on. How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely they'll raise them significantly. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
"John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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 I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50% 10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number) LHR is a ****ty (and expensive) place to connect at. 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, and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract passengers and make the airport vibrant. Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game we should be entering (IMHO). as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe, is it? It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the airport with the largest number of connecting passengers. and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other. No it doesn't one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations tim |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:16:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: 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). Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs. It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate, available to locals to fly on. How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely they'll raise them significantly. We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport. As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:21:52 +0100, "tim..."
wrote: "John Williamson" wrote in message ... 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 I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50% Prepare to be surprised: it's 30% 10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number) It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find it. https://www.heathrow.com/company/company-news-and-information/company-information/facts-and-figures LHR is a ****ty (and expensive) place to connect at. True, it's what comes of having multiple, widely-separated terminals. It's not bad if the transfer is within one terminal, but pretty bad if it involves a bus journey between terminals. 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, and is IMHO a target market that we should not be seeking London/SE England/rUK is a popular enough market in itself to attract passengers and make the airport vibrant. Subjecting a much greater number of residents of West Londoner to unacceptable noise levels, just to attract connecting passages is not a game we should be entering (IMHO). as Heathrow is the biggest hub airport in Europe, is it? It might be the biggest airport that's a hub. I doubt very much it is the airport with the largest number of connecting passengers. That may well be true: AMS or CDG may be ahead in terms of transfer passengers. and has a wider choice of international destinations than any other. No it doesn't True. In fact, even Gatwick has more foreign destinations than Heathrow, and I've had to use hubs in Amsterdam, Madrid and Paris to travel to airports that really ought to have direct UK flights. "Heathrow serves 185 destinations in 84 countries, while Gatwick serves 200 destinations in 90 countries." https://www.pinkelephantparking.com/heathrow-vs-gatwick-the-facts/ one of the stated reasons for claiming that we need the extra runway is that it has fallen behind in terms of choice of destinations True |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100
"tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. 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. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:30:18 +0100
Recliner wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 11:16:23 +0000 (UTC), wrote: How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely they'll raise them significantly. We seem to have this exact same discussion about once a year. Let's just accept that you'll never understand the concept of a hub airport. A child could understand the concept. A child could also understand why we don't need an even larger one in the west of london. However apparently you and the comedians in government apparently don't. As someone who's afraid of flying, you've probably never used one. The fact that you constantly bring up that assertion you made up about once a month in lieu of an actual argument shows you don't have one. But lets be honest, all you give a damn about is being able to swill your booze in first class at 35K feet, you don't give a monkeys about the millions of people who'll have to suffer the construction and operation of this pointless white elephant. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 12:21, tim... wrote:
I'd be surprised if it's as much as 50% 10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number) Half is a slightly misremembered approximation. LHR claim 30%. -- Tciao for Now! John. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 12:13, tim... wrote:
wrote in message ... 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. OK Luton's a bit further from being full than the other 2, but it's still filling up 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. I have to say that I didn't notice, as I know exactly where the airport in "Kent" is, that it is not at Marsden is moot No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly.Â* It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive an hour and a half from Manston sees you reach about a million people The road to Manston isn't bad, it's just at (one of) the farthest corner(s) of the country 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. Agreed It would be easy to rail link Manston (moving the terminal would be easier than building a rail spur) But it's still going to be 1 and half hour away from a London Terminal. That's just too far JOOI what's the travel time from a London terminal to Luton? -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote:
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. Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport, there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely move those for Schipol and CDG to make room? -- Robin reply-to address is (intended to be) valid |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
|
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun
2018, remarked: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: 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). Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it. Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a grip. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs. The capital cost is recouped from the air fares. It also makes routes which were not otherwise economic to operate, available to locals to fly on. How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely they'll raise them significantly. It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be economic for the airlines to service. -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
In message , at 12:41:06 on
Mon, 11 Jun 2018, Recliner remarked: 10% would be nearer my guess (I can't actually find the number) It takes less time to find than it took you to say you couldn't find it. sigh the Tim effect in its full glory. -- Roland Perry |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:52:34 +0100
Roland Perry wrote: In message , at 11:16:23 on Mon, 11 Jun 2018, remarked: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:05:21 +0100 Roland Perry wrote: 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). Really? Where? A few extra staff at the terminals If a third [approximately] of all flights are generated by transfer passengers then all the maintenance and support (eg airline meals and baggage handling, and cleaning and fuelling and dispatch) for those flights creates work in the local economy. A trivial amount. and a few extra journeys for cabbies. Thats about it. Transfer flights don't create work for cabbies. Please try to get a grip. I'm assuming it won't all be transfer passengers. I said a few extra. I suspect it would take a few millenia to recoup the billions that will be spent on it the extra tax income from those jobs. The capital cost is recouped from the air fares. Ah, I see you're a comedian too. For a start the airlines arn't funding it and secondly if heathrow raise their fees too high some of them may simply clear off elsewhere. How so? You think Heathrow are going to drop their landing fees? More likely they'll raise them significantly. It's nothing to do with landing fees, simply without the transfer passengers numerous of the final destinations would no longer be economic for the airlines to service. Give some examples then of routes that will be used by transfer passengers but not in any significant amount by locals. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. 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. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston. Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights (and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even need to bother with transport links - even cheaper. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100
Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote: 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. Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport, there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely move those for Schipol and CDG to make room? I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:39 +0100 Robin wrote: On 11/06/2018 11:53, wrote: 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. Among the many problems with using Manston as London's major airport, there's fitting the flight paths in with those over mainland Europe for airports there. Do you reckon France and the Netherlands would nicely move those for Schipol and CDG to make room? I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On 11/06/2018 14:38, wrote:
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. 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. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston. Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights (and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even need to bother with transport links - even cheaper. That's not how a hub airport works. -- Graeme Wall This account not read. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:24:59 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:40, wrote: I'm not suggesting supplanting the whole of heathrow with manston. But even if I was, aircraft could still stack over the UK, it would have no impact on french or dutch airspace. Check the prevailing wind directions, also the location of the stacks for LHR and LGW. It might be convenient to have a stack downwind of an airport but its not essential. |
Plan to pedestrianise London's Oxford Street scrapped
On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 15:25:57 +0100
Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 14:38, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 13:00:46 +0100 Graeme Wall wrote: On 11/06/2018 12:42, wrote: On Mon, 11 Jun 2018 12:13:13 +0100 "tim..." wrote: wrote in message ... No one would want to fly from heathrow if it didn't have 2 rail links and a motorway going to it. Don't be silly. It's reasonably centrally located in SE England with a population of about 15 million within an hour and a half's drive If it didn't have any PT links or a motorway it would take a damn site more than 1.5 hours to reach it - the roads would be gridlocked. 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. There's a loads of secondary airports that can only easily be reached by car Yet they manage to achieve a critical mass of customers - because they have a large enough local catchment Manston does not Yet oddly it worked for Hong Kong. You can't get a tailor made suit in 24 hours in Manston. Obviously not, but the cost and disruption would be far less than for any current london airport. And if the 3rd runway really is just for hub flights (and if my granny had wheels she'd be a bus) then all you'd need to build at Manston would be a nice terminal for the pax to wait in, you wouldn't even need to bother with transport links - even cheaper. That's not how a hub airport works. Oh ok, are we going to get yet another definition of a hub airport from you too? |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 10:52 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk