https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/heathrow-congestion-charge-is-expected-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f851b4 ca3

In message , at 10:37:29 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, Recliner remarked:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...arge-is-expect
ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85
1b4ca3

If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all
relax for the foreseeable future.

Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last
year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable
alternative for accompanied pax.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:37:29 on Mon, 23 Sep
2019, Recliner remarked:

https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...arge-is-expect
ed-to-raise-1-2bn-a-year-wv9qn2c36?shareToken=2e1812617e77460e9d40ce4f85
1b4ca3

If it isn't introduced until the third runway opens, I think we can all
relax for the foreseeable future.

I won't be in the least surprised if they try to introduce it when
construction starts, rather than only when the runway opens.


Meanwhile, I dropped someone off at Hayes and Harlington Station last
year, and presuming that's outside the zone, could be a viable
alternative for accompanied pax.

Yes, the Tube and rail stations around LHR could become popular drop-off
points.

On Mon, 23 Sep 2019 10:37:29 -0000 (UTC)
Recliner wrote:
https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/h...-expected-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.

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.

"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 23/09/2019 16:32, wrote:

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.

They should never have gone for a 3rd runway at Heathrow. A second
runway at Gatwick would make far more sense.


--
Ria in Aberdeen

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