|
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
The Times this morning reports that Luton Airport is to build a new
runway in time for 2012 Olympics together with a new terminal and monorail connection to Luton Airport Parkway.The City of London has issued a report indicating that rail links will become increasingly congested as a result on increasing employment in London and call for a "step change in the level of investment". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843035,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843483,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843849,00.html Is there any organisation/individual that is monitoring the reopened planning enquiry into Thameslink that began on the 6th September 2005? |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
monorail connection to Luton Airport Parkway.
Nah. Would probably be an extension of the mis-guuded Luton - Dunstable busway. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
In message .com, at
03:22:57 on Wed, 26 Oct 2005, Bob Robinson remarked: The Times this morning reports that Luton Airport is to build a new runway in time for 2012 Olympics I think you'll find it's at the somewhat earlier stage of "thinking about maybe applying for planning permission to..." -- Roland Perry |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Roland Perry wrote: I think you'll find it's at the somewhat earlier stage of "thinking about maybe applying for planning permission to..." But a bit later than that as it is past the thinking stage and is at the have decided to apply stage. Two steps, one is a limited existing terminal expansion for 2007, the second - seperate step and seperate planning application - will be for a major new south terminal and south runway about 900 m south of the existing facility and to operate in parallel with it and open for 2012. Seems a tight timescale to me as there will be lots of objections to it. Presumably it is the latter scheme is / may have some other kind of transit link to LAP. It will need something as they are planning to jump from the present 54,000 movements p.a. to 234,000. -- Nick |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
In message . com, at
22:36:30 on Wed, 26 Oct 2005, D7666 remarked: I think you'll find it's at the somewhat earlier stage of "thinking about maybe applying for planning permission to..." But a bit later than that as it is past the thinking stage and is at the have decided to apply stage. Application to be made "late next year". To me that means they are flying a kite now to see what reaction they get, before making up their mind exactly what to apply for. Seems a tight timescale to me as there will be lots of objections to it. Their most recent expansion seems like a real dogs breakfast. Took ages and I'm not sure quite what improvement it made. Same old cramped baggage hall, and the walk to the gate involved a trip upstairs and back down again - what was that all about? -- Roland Perry |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
"D7666" wrote:
But a bit later than that as it is past the thinking stage and is at the have decided to apply stage. Indeed so. There was a flurry of publicity in the media only a few days ago. Two steps, one is a limited existing terminal expansion for 2007, the second - seperate step and seperate planning application - will be for a major new south terminal and south runway about 900 m south of the existing facility and to operate in parallel with it and open for 2012. Seems a tight timescale to me as there will be lots of objections to it. Presumably it is the latter scheme is / may have some other kind of transit link to LAP. It will need something as they are planning to jump from the present 54,000 movements p.a. to 234,000. Poor Luton. Already a deeply unattractive town, these developments can only serve to make it an even worse place to live and/or work. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Roland Perry wrote: Their most recent expansion seems like a real dogs breakfast. Took ages and I'm not sure quite what improvement it made. Same old cramped baggage hall, and the walk to the gate involved a trip upstairs and back down again - what was that all about? It's a bit better that being shoved on a bus to be taken to a remote stand, which was more common at busy time before the terminal extension opened. Luton Airport does look rather like a Lego construction though, where every few years a child gets a new box from a different series and builds something on top of a pre-existing set. Reminds me a little of the old Liverpool Street station. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
|
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Tony Polson wrote: Poor Luton. Already a deeply unattractive town, these developments can only serve to make it an even worse place to live and/or work. And I live here, Luton, a bit to the south east of the town centre, which if you know Luton is in the direction of the airport, although at least I am side on the the runway[s] existing and proposed. Since Ryanair stopped using 737-200s, and no-one much uses 111s any more, the only aircraft I notice are the occasional cargo 707s or DC8s, straying overseas based biz-jet 737 conversions, and DC9/MD80 etc that lack hush kits - plus the occasional RB211 powered 757 if they do an abort approach and overfly and the engines sound like a demented buzz saw on amphetamines. Can't say I have a job of any sort though in Luton or not right now at the moment :o( -- Nick |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Bob Robinson wrote:
Is there any organisation/individual that is monitoring the reopened planning enquiry into Thameslink that began on the 6th September 2005? Regarding the Thameslink inquiry, there is a dedicated site for it: http://www.tl2000inquiry.org.uk/ The latest 'provisional' timetable suggests the inquiry will finish next Friday (4th November). Assuming everything goes according to plan expect the porject to go-ahead beginning 2007. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Roland Perry said:
the walk to the gate involved a trip upstairs and back down again - what was that all about? IIRC there are some gates like that at Gatwick too. It's not just a Luton problem. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
"Tony Polson" wrote in message
... "D7666" wrote: Poor Luton. Already a deeply unattractive town, these developments can only serve to make it an even worse place to live and/or work. Wont affect luton much as the airport is south of the town and planes take off/land east west. Never know it might prompt someone to pay for fitting out St Pan Midland Rd Though. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
"paul" wrote:
Wont affect luton much as the airport is south of the town and planes take off/land east west. So the airport extensions and resulting vast increase in passengers handled won't lead to any increase in traffic in the town Luton? I wonder how you worked that out. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
The Times this morning reports that Luton Airport is to build a new
runway in time for 2012 Olympics together with a new terminal and monorail connection to Luton Airport Parkway.The City of London has issued a report indicating that rail links will become increasingly congested as a result on increasing employment in London and call for a "step change in the level of investment". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843035,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843483,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843849,00.html Why not, rather than expand the airport, and create more noise and far more pollution, build a high-speed domestic rail link and ban all domestic flights to destinations served by said rail link? |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Joe Patrick wrote: Why not, rather than expand the airport, and create more noise and far more pollution, build a high-speed domestic rail link and ban all domestic flights to destinations served by said rail link? I've long held the view that the WCML PUG and LHR rail link and CTRL and channel tunnel should have allowed for high speed inter-airport node trains, connecting in the UK Manchester, Birmingham, LHR, LGW, Paris CGD, AMS Shiphol and possibly Frankfurt Main. Some trains would be exclusive airlines paths conveying transit passengers and checked baggages , others stopping at certain principal stations for passengers for journeys into town/s. Reduces airport expansions needs by freeing slots. -- Nick |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Joe Patrick wrote:
The Times this morning reports that Luton Airport is to build a new runway in time for 2012 Olympics together with a new terminal and monorail connection to Luton Airport Parkway.The City of London has issued a report indicating that rail links will become increasingly congested as a result on increasing employment in London and call for a "step change in the level of investment". http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843035,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843483,00.html http://www.timesonline.co.uk/newspap...843849,00.html Why not, rather than expand the airport, and create more noise and far more pollution, build a high-speed domestic rail link and ban all domestic flights to destinations served by said rail link? No need to ban the domestic flights; even with the under-taxing of air travel, new TGV routes have decimated air competition in those corridors - e.g. Paris-Brussels. With a proper tax on plane fuel, a well-designed UK high-speed line would virtually eliminate significant volumes of domestic air travel. If it were connected to Heathrow, Manchester and Edinburgh airports (or other combinations thereof), it would also virtually eliminate the need for connecting local flights for international passengers. -- Dave Arquati Imperial College, SW7 www.alwaystouchout.com - Transport projects in London |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Tony Polson wrote: "paul" wrote: Wont affect luton much as the airport is south of the town and planes take off/land east west. And Paul, do you live to the south of Luton town centre ? I posted I personally do not notice noise much from where I am but thats a freak of geography due to a hill acting as a noise barrier. There are many who will be affected, not only in Luton but in Hitchin / Welwyn / Hemel Hempstead who are right under the flight paths. And never mind the road traffic. And possible motorway link - there is a proposal somewhere about a new direct A1 / M1 link as well as a different idea from M1 north of Luton in a loop around the east of the town also to the airport. So the airport extensions and resulting vast increase in passengers handled won't lead to any increase in traffic in the town Luton? I wonder how you worked that out. Don't know Tony. I'm not against traffic expansion, nor against Luton airport expansion, I don't think this scheme is particularly well thought out, and what will happen is they are trying to rush it through for a short term commercial need for 2012 for Luton airports current owners only, rahter than long term strategic needs of the whole of the south east. -- Nick |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
"D7666" wrote:
And possible motorway link - there is a proposal somewhere about a new direct A1 / M1 link as well as a different idea from M1 north of Luton in a loop around the east of the town also to the airport. There has long been a proposal for a Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road which would form part of an outer ring around London - in other words, further out than the M25. It would broadly follow the existing A505 corridor. I believe the route followed the supposedly abandoned "Ringway 3" scheme of the 1970s - where "Ringway 2" was the only one of three proposed London ring roads that actually got built - as the M25. In the mid 1990s I advised some local residents on several aspects of the (then-)proposed Aylesbury by-pass. The Department of Transport (Highways Agency) drawings showing the various possible routes around Aylesbury were all clearly titled "Felixstowe to Southampton Trunk Road". Although no such long distance road scheme had ever been announced to the public, it was clearly part of Department of Transport planning. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Tony Polson wrote: which would form part of an outer ring around London - in other words, further out than the M25. It would broadly follow the existing A505 corridor. Ahhh is that where it comes from. I believe the route followed the supposedly abandoned "Ringway 3" Could well be, I know it is an idea that been in the air (excuse the pun) as formaing a possible airport link every since I moed to Luton in 1987 (aaarrgghh have I really been here 18 years). -- Nick |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Tony Polson wrote:
There has long been a proposal for a Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road which would form part of an outer ring around London - in other words, further out than the M25. It would broadly follow the existing A505 corridor. [...] Although no such long distance road scheme had ever been announced to the public, it was clearly part of Department of Transport planning. Trunk Roads aren't "schemes" as such, just lengths of existing roads that were taken over by the (then) Ministry of Roads and (the ones that haven't been detrunked, anyway) now maintained by the HA. They were originally defined by the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946. For example, Trunk Road 1 is London-Thurso and Trunk Road 8 is London-Penzance (from the 1936 Act) and the now defunct Trunk Road 41 is Taunton-Barnstaple-Fraddon (in the 1946 Act). Without access to a copy of the Acts I can't be certain, but I'd guess the Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road was created by the 1946 Act. I did find a complete list recently (and accidentally!), but I can't find it now: the closest I've come is on a posting on the SABRE forum he http://tinyurl.com/bhvqs. It's not complete (or particularly accurate, for that matter); and the numbering isn't really "secret", it's just the order they appear in each Act! Neil Sunderland -- Braunton, Devon Please observe the Reply-To address. NP: Spin Doctors - Dogs On A Doe (from the album 'You've Got To Believe In Something') |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Neil Sunderland wrote:
Trunk Roads aren't "schemes" as such, just lengths of existing roads that were taken over by the (then) Ministry of Roads and (the ones that haven't been detrunked, anyway) now maintained by the HA. They were originally defined by the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946. For example, Trunk Road 1 is London-Thurso and Trunk Road 8 is London-Penzance (from the 1936 Act) and the now defunct Trunk Road 41 is Taunton-Barnstaple-Fraddon (in the 1946 Act). Without access to a copy of the Acts I can't be certain, but I'd guess the Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road was created by the 1946 Act. I did find a complete list recently (and accidentally!), but I can't find it now: the closest I've come is on a posting on the SABRE forum he http://tinyurl.com/bhvqs. It's not complete (or particularly accurate, for that matter); and the numbering isn't really "secret", it's just the order they appear in each Act! Interesting, thanks. |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
In article , Neil Sunderland
writes They were originally defined by the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946. For example, Trunk Road 1 is London-Thurso and Trunk Road 8 is London-Penzance (from the 1936 Act) and the now defunct Trunk Road 41 is Taunton-Barnstaple-Fraddon (in the 1946 Act). Without access to a copy of the Acts I can't be certain, but I'd guess the Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road was created by the 1946 Act. At least the 1936 Act has been repealed (by a Statute Law Reform Act, so not because of a specific replacement) and there's no sign of the 1946 Act in "Statutes in Force". I doubt I'm going to have time to visit a law library in the near future to find the originals. -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
In article , I wrote:
At least the 1936 Act has been repealed (by a Statute Law Reform Act, oops, Statute Law Revision Act so not because of a specific replacement) I should have clarified for those not familiar: SLR Acts basically repeal Acts or parts of Acts whose provisions have either been superseded by later laws, or is effectively dead but needs a formal stake through the heart. For example, clause 25 of Magna Carta: One measure of Wine shall be through our Realm, and one measure of Ale, and one measure of Corn, that is to say, the Quarter of London; and one breadth of dyed Cloth, Russets, and Haberjects, that is to say, two Yards within the lists. And it shall be of Weights as it is of Measures. is superseded by the various bits of Weights and Measures legislation, and so the 1948 SLR Act repealed it. Similarly, the concept that women can't accuse men of murder was effectively dead long ago, and so clause 34: No Man shall be taken or imprisoned upon the Appeal of a Woman for the Death of any other, than of her husband. was repealed by the 1863 SLR Act (1872 in Ireland). [That particular Act repealed almost half of the Great Charter.] -- Clive D.W. Feather | Home: Tel: +44 20 8495 6138 (work) | Web: http://www.davros.org Fax: +44 870 051 9937 | Work: Please reply to the Reply-To address, which is: |
The Thameslink Planning Enquiry
Neil Sunderland wrote:
Trunk Roads aren't "schemes" as such, just lengths of existing roads that were taken over by the (then) Ministry of Roads and (the ones that haven't been detrunked, anyway) now maintained by the HA. They were originally defined by the Trunk Roads Acts of 1936 and 1946. For example, Trunk Road 1 is London-Thurso and Trunk Road 8 is London-Penzance (from the 1936 Act) and the now defunct Trunk Road 41 is Taunton-Barnstaple-Fraddon (in the 1946 Act). Without access to a copy of the Acts I can't be certain, but I'd guess the Felixstowe-Southampton Trunk Road was created by the 1946 Act. I've now found a list of the roads defined by the two Acts online. http://www.watsonlv.addr.com/my_hosting/trunk_roads.htm Southampton-Felixstowe isn't listed, though. However, it could have been formed from two (or more) Trunk Roads that were joined up for administrative purposes, although it's not immediately obvious from the list which ones would have been joined up. It's equally likely that it was defined by later legislation. At least I identified Trunk Roads 1, 8 and 41 accurately :) Neil Sunderland -- Braunton, Devon Please observe the Reply-To address. NP: Led Zeppelin - Down By The Seaside (from the album 'Physical Graffiti') |
| All times are GMT. The time now is 11:28 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2006 LondonBanter.co.uk