NEW HEATHROW HUB

[whole diary]

[Btline]

I'd rather have Gordon and Labour than the do nothing Tories. Cameron will say anything to get votes, and I doubt he'll get round to it!

And as for the swt cuts- NO toc can justify making any cuts as they all make huge profits! How dare swt put up the fares so much, and then make cuts! And I do not believe what they say about the lack of passengers. Got seats? -lower your fares!

[devon_metro]

Thanks to Labour's spending policies if I choose to stay in Broken Britain, my tax bills will be very high when at the mercy of the government!

Then again, i'm a toff from the South West 

[Zoe]

And as for the swt cuts- NO toc can justify making any cuts as they all make huge profits! How dare swt put up the fares so much, and then make cuts! And I do not believe what they say about the lack of passengers. Got seats? -lower your fares!

That's not how it works with private railway companies.

[Btline]

Thanks to Labour's spending policies if I choose to stay in Broken Britain, my tax bills will be very high when at the mercy of the government!

Then again, i'm a toff from the South West 

And if Labour had not spent and "kept money for a rainy day", who would be moaning about the cuts in the health, transport etc? Yep - you guessed it, the Tories!

We have seen a taster of typical future Tory policy with Boris Johnson in London.

Western Congestion Charge axed. Out go investments in trams, new rail lines, staffing. Up go the fares.

[simonw]

Leaving politics and returning to rail ...

What approximate route would a hi speed link from St Pancras take to Heathrow ?
Can a hi speed route be offered in an urban area like London ?
how long does the train tak from Paddington? The proposed Crossrail from Paddington and the proposed HSL from St Pancras.

[Btline]

Heathrow Express is 15 minutes TO THE TERMINALS (_{Heathorw Connect/Crossrail takes 25 minutes}).

The high speed link could be half that time, but to a "hub" 2 MILES AWAY.

[Lee]

A somewhat sceptical note from Railway Eye (link below.)
http://railwayeye.blogspot.com/2009/01/you-lucky-people.html

[willc]

Ministers have approved the third runway at Heathrow, according to the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7829676.stm

The decision is set to be confirmed officially on Thursday. Alongside the commitment to a new runway, Transport Secretary Geoff Hoon is expected to announce increased investment in public transport, including a new high-speed rail link from the airport to central London.

What a complete disaster for local residents. Heathrow should not be expanded, its big enough as it is!!

The amount of people that Heathrow actually benefits is ridiculous. There should be more expansion at regional airports, cutting down on cross country drives to get to the chaos that is Heathrow, at places such as Bristol, Exeter, Robin Hood, Leeds, Liveerpool. etc

But Heathrow is all about the big international airlines and they don't want to go to regional airports - for example, BA^» (British Airways - about) has ditched almost all its flights to the US from them in the past few years - nor do they particularly want to go to Gatwick or Stansted, which was a white elephant until Easyjet and Ryanair turned up, so irrrespective of all the promises made down the years, as soon as BAA says 'we need to expand Heathrow', Governments, of whatever colour, just roll over.

It's lousy for the people who live nearby, but that's nothing new, my brother lived in Hounslow for a year as a student 20 years ago and even then planes were nose to tail coming in to land much of the day. It will be no comfort to the locals but if we get GWML^▸ (Great Western Main Line) electrification and an HSL out of it then that is to be welcomed.

[Lee]

An interesting opposing view from Christian Wolmar (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2009/01/heathrow-madness/

[bemmy]

Recently I had to find my way through the Stalinist monstrosity that is Heathrow Terminal 5 (why do we need that monorail when a moving walkway would do perfectly well?), and my impression is that it symbolises the peak of this nations pomposity and arrogance, and in a few years will be seeing only a fraction of the passengers it was designed for.

I believe air travel is set to decline over the next few decades for a combination of reasons:

- The environment: obviously our present government doesn't care about it, but increasingly other European governments do, and by increasing taxes they will reduce short haul flights, probably in favour of rail. I believe the majority of flights from Heathrow are short haul to Europe.
- Terrorism: not so much the threat to flights themselves, but the overall fear factor as terrorism increases will reduce international tourism, especially perhaps from the US. And terrorism will increase, while the reasons for its existence are not addressed.
- The economy: I've no idea how deep or longlasting this global downturn will be, but I think it's pretty bad. They can't wave a magic wand and bring all that imaginary money back. I'm no expert, but clearly the UK^▸ (United Kingdom) is one of the most exposed nations in this regard -- what exactly was our economy built on apart from the now discredited Financial Services Industry, and overinflated property values?
- More and more people are waking up to the fact that flying is rubbish. You have a long and awkward journey to the airport, you struggle to stay within the luggage allowance, you wait around for hours, then the hassle of security checks, then you're cramped into a tiny area, and the food is poor, and when you arrive you've got loads more waiting around to do and then have a third journey to reach your destination. Yeah it's exciting the first few times but once the novelty has worn off and the cheap flights are gone.... most people would rather drive or take a train.

So it will be ironic if the only major improvements to our rail system are built to service airports.

But hey, let's built a few white elephants for future generations to laugh at, as they remember how in the early 21st century our government thought London was the most important city in the world. 

[Tim]

An interesting opposing view from Christian Wolmar (link below.)
http://www.christianwolmar.co.uk/2009/01/heathrow-madness/

Thanks Lee.  He has a point about low airfares being an indication that there is no lack of capacity. 

Why is it acceptable to use price to control demand on the railway (and they are talking about it on the roads) but not in the sky?

The ARUP plans disturb me because they appear to show FGW^▸ (First Great Western) HSS^▸ (High Speed Services) stopping at the "hub".  This will lenthen journey times even further

[maninsuit]

so with the 3rd runway approval we get a 12 platform station built at thorney junction on the m25/m4 between iver and west drayton on the golf course and water works. GREAT. and....if the tories get in, which they will, they cancel the runway project and the station one gets the big hurrah. Chaos ensues and us travellers from Iver/West drayton can continue to stand in shabby overcrowded inadequate transport into Paddington whilst those huge numbers of people from Manchester and Cardiff whizz by on their way to Paris thus saving the planet. Great plan.................. Lets improve what we have then look at doing what we should re environment and airports. I am adding up the cost of T4,T5 the now planned T6 the improvements made to T1,T2 T3 the developmet of the train station and bus depot in the centre of heathrow, the cost of the new runway, the rail hub, the destruction of the land and environmet and trying to compare with the estimated cost of building a new airport off the coast in east london. Forward thinking? What a shambles.

[Lee]

Welcome to the the forum, maninsuit

I'm assuming from the title of your post that you wanted to contribute to this topic, so I have moved your post accordingly.

Hope this is ok.

[willc]

More and more people are waking up to the fact that flying is rubbish. You have a long and awkward journey to the airport, you struggle to stay within the luggage allowance, you wait around for hours, then the hassle of security checks, then you're cramped into a tiny area, and the food is poor, and when you arrive you've got loads more waiting around to do and then have a third journey to reach your destination. Yeah it's exciting the first few times but once the novelty has worn off and the cheap flights are gone.... most people would rather drive or take a train.

But it's been like that for years and hasn't put people off flying, because even with all the hassle involved, it's still quicker to most of Europe, except for Paris and Brussels, or there's no other way to get there - and it's not just long-haul that this is the case. I lived in Norway for a while and not once was a flight I took between Oslo and London on time (worst delays were both two hours - as long as the flight itself takes) but what's the alternative? You can't even go by sea any more, as the Newcastle-Stavanger ferry route closed at the end of August.

If I can avoid using any London airport, I will. Flying from Birmingham is not quite a pleasure but certainly very straightforward but there are only so may places you can go from there, so I'm afraid it will have to be Heathrow when I go to visit relatives in Canada later this year.

[Lee]

David Cameron has warned firms not to invest in building a third runway at Heathrow, as his party will scrap the plan if it wins power (link below.)
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/7832693.stm

An interesting further quote from the BBC^» (British Broadcasting Corporation - home page) article:

Some protesters smashed doors at the Department for Transport after the decision was made