In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total. I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies. Anyone who had seen what those ****wits
got up to with their prized possesion would never park at heathrow again.

In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 17:13:29 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from the

aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows
how they calculate that.

I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

I don't see why that would
change with a 3rd runway. And my office overlooked one of the parking pounds
of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.
--
Roland Perry

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.

Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.

On 27/09/2019 20:26, wrote:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

I hereby propose a new law, based on Godwin's Law. Anyone who mentions
Brexit in a thread that is nothing to do with it automatically loses the
argument.

Let's call it Boris's Law.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

[Send address is invalid, use sipsoup at gmail dot com to reply direct]

In message , at 19:26:11 on Fri, 27 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 18:48:55 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 16:23:25 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

It would take probably 500+ cars just to replace 1 full tube train so god
knows
how they calculate that.

By doing proper professional surveys.

Would these be the same proper professional surveys that predicted a brexit
referendum win for remain?

Doing a historical traffic survey is a rather different task to opinion
polling.

of one of the private parking companies.

Good view of the kiss-and rides at the three terminal complexes?

Nope. North side.

QED.

Why? The parking pounds arn't in the airport are they. I'm not talking about
the carparks run by Heathrow Plc.

Not sure *what* you are talking about. But one thing's clear, you
couldn't have seen but small fraction of the car traffic in/out of the
Heathrow complex.
--
Roland Perry

"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles
going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from
the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary
(obviously not so for flight crew)

On Wed, 25 Sep 2019 13:42:21 +0100, "tim..."
wrote:



"Roland Perry" wrote in message
...
In message , at 15:32:33 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 14:07:52 +0100
Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 11:15:51 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, remarked:
On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...harge-is-expec
ted-to-r
aise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

Ah, greenwash at its finest. I'm sure reducing the number of vehicles
going
to and from the airport will really make up for the extra emissions from
the
aircraft using the new runway such as the A380 which burns half a ton of
fuel
just to get from the gate to take off position.

If 300 of the passengers arrived by car, the extra congestion, let alone
emissions, would be noticeable.

I used to work near heathrow and the number of people travelling there by
private car was a small percentage of the total.

Total public transport (by passengers) has crept up to 40% over the last
decade (from 35%). Then there's the staff.

I suspect that a far larger percentage of staff travel by PT, as being
dropped off by a relative every day isn't exactly practical, and paying 20
quid a day to park is going to take a big chunk out of someone's NMW salary
(obviously not so for flight crew)


I assumed that many staff get free parking in the large staff car
parks.