"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, tim..... wrote:


"Dogpoop" wrote in message
...
CJB wrote:

PROPOSALS to build two new terminals at Heathrow are being considered
as part of plans to increase the airport's capacity, government
documents have revealed, writes Jonathon Carr-Brown.

Maybe someone should publish these 'hidden' plans then.

Or come up with a viable alternative.

Developing Stansted into a 4 runway airport with a high speed train
connection (south, north and sast) and closing LHR completely.

Hey! Why Stansted?

Because Stansted is the one with the least people under
the potential flight path(s)

Why not Luton

Because, like LHR, it's surrounded by a town

- much better placed for the transport links. Run a rail spur Stevenage -
Luton - Leighton Buzzard and you've got the WCML, MML and ECML all linked
in. If the Oxford - Cambridge line comes back to life, there's an easy link
to the GWML too.

I know that the locals won't like this, but there are far less of them.

How about this airport on an artificial island in the Thames estuary,
then? Even fewer NIMBYs!

Yep, I agree, but paradoxically this is an even harder sell

tim

On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, tim..... wrote:

"Tom Anderson" wrote in message
.li...
On Wed, 15 Aug 2007, tim..... wrote:

"Dogpoop" wrote in message
...
CJB wrote:

PROPOSALS to build two new terminals at Heathrow are being
considered as part of plans to increase the airport's capacity,
government documents have revealed, writes Jonathon Carr-Brown.

Maybe someone should publish these 'hidden' plans then.

Or come up with a viable alternative.

Developing Stansted into a 4 runway airport with a high speed train
connection (south, north and sast) and closing LHR completely.

Hey! Why Stansted?

Because Stansted is the one with the least people under the potential
flight path(s)

Why not Luton

Because, like LHR, it's surrounded by a town

Have you ever heard of a place called Bishop's Stortford?

tom

--
They didn't have any answers - they just wanted weed and entitlement.

Steve Walker farted out
In message , tim.....
writes

Or come up with a viable alternative.

Developing Stansted into a 4 runway airport with a high
speed train connection (south, north and sast) and
closing LHR completely.

I know that the locals won't like this, but there are far less
of them.

Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated. Shame that Bristol airport is
such a pain in the arse to get to. Otherwise, and if the flights went
where I want to go, I'd happily never use a London airport again.
Especially Gatwick shudder.

Maybe there's a case for expanding all/many/some regional airports, like
Bristol, but as part of that expansion also increase/improve the local
infrastructure to support them properly. Better
road/rail/bus/cycle/pedestrian links, with a lot more scope for additional,
indirect to the airport, investment, say industrial estates etc that might
be better being some way away from habitation.

--
Dog Poop

Away from home.

Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.


Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor and
its passengers that live there.

Half the passengers using Heathrow are transit passengers anyway and
they can transit anywhere.

Why on Earth do the environmental lobby keep targeting aviation.

At least aviation is public transport, which is more than can be said
for cars.

"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...

Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.


Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor and
its passengers that live there.

Hum, when was the mainline railway built?

tim

In message .com,
allan tracy writes

Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.


Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor and
its passengers that live there.

Don't really see the relevance. Simple question of where people live and
how easy it is to get to an airport. Heathrow currently serves those
people. Closing it and expanding Stansted would not. Which came first
seems completely irrelevant to how current transport requirements are
best met.


--
Steve Walker

tim..... wrote:
"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.

Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor and
its passengers that live there.

Hum, when was the mainline railway built?


Relevence?

"NM" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:
"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4 corridor
for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.

Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor and
its passengers that live there.

Hum, when was the mainline railway built?


Relevence?

Why would they build a mainline railway to an area with
no people in it.

tim

tim..... wrote:
"NM" wrote in message
...
tim..... wrote:
"allan tracy" wrote in message
oups.com...
Bit bloody useless for all of the passengers living in the M4
corridor for whom Heathrow is usefully situated.

Ask yourself which came first Heathrow Airport or the M4 corridor
and its passengers that live there.

Hum, when was the mainline railway built?


Relevence?

Why would they build a mainline railway to an area with
no people in it.

"They" didn't. The railway was built to move goods from the port of Bristol
to London.