They don't need to expand the airport. After reaching peak oil, both economy and air travel will collapse. Just the opposite, we need to decrease our economy, because it's environmentally unsustainable.
It's also incredibly and ironically foolish. Heathrow caters to the long haul market. Because of our shared language, Americans and Canadians use the British Isles to connect to other places in the Old World. Trains obviously cannot fix that problem and it is completely and utterly absurd to believe that skype will replace person to person interaction (that should be really obvious three years after COVID), regardless of how much asocial northern Europeans (including Brits) may wish for that to happen. If another runway isn't built at a London airport, the city's airports (and the airlines based there) will be left behind by airports near cities elsewhere in the British Isles. They will be left behind by airlines operating point to point networks across the Atlantic, despite the fact that that model is notoriously ill-suited to long-haul travel. That's great for those airports and those airlines respectively, but the idea that this would be good for London, or intrinsically better for the environment, is ridiculous.
As a young Airforce BRAT I loved being woken up by the roar of afterburners and the smell of burning JP-4 kerosene . My childhood at CFB Landcaster Park and life long military aviation enthusiast.
As an aviation fan leaving near CDG, it can be great but it's also fckng tiring on the long run, especially if you ever want to relax in the calm for more than 10 minutes
Airport noise is one of the reasons my daughter was able to afford a home in South Seattle near Sea-Tac airport. She sure as hell wouldn't have been able to buy a place in other neighborhoods.
Exactly. Why is "keeping property values high" considered an unmitigated good in urban planning? It helps some (sellers and owners) and hurts some (buyers and renters.) If a project lowered your property value, tough luck, who cares?
Andre Tsang because, at least in the US, the sellers and the owners fund the local governments (via property taxes) AND have most of the political power (via the vote). Buyers and renters, more likely to be from out of town get the shaft.
@@goste4 The thing is, property tax is levied in such a way that any individual property's value is mostly unimportant. Tax rate = [levy amount] / [the sum of all real property value] so if one property value or the entire RE market tanks, no biggie, the levy amount will still be assessed. That said, you're not wrong about the "homevoter" phenomenon. I always vote for politicians who work for the greatest good, with total disregard for local property value.
Andre Tsang yes, you’re definitely right; mill levy rates work to somewhat separate the tax receipts of a taxing entity from property values a little. But I don’t think it does so completely. Taxing entities still have an incentive to do things which increase property values as this allows them to advertise lower tax rates while maintaining, or even increasing the levied tax. Wouldn’t you agree? If property values fall, the levied tax a city receives might not change, but the rate felt by the tax payer does (a higher percentage of the properties value is felt). In the long run, this may the stifle economic activity in the city by driving away those most able to leave (the wealthy) causing other tax receipts to fall (e.g. sales taxes), and other expenditures to rise (e.g. policing, etc). Even the costs associated with collecting the taxes may rise dramatically, as owners decide to abandon the property and not pay the tax. Sure, the city may reposes and auction the property, but that costs money and time. Furthermore, a tanking market makes it likely that no buyer will emerge. So all I’m saying is that it is in a city government’s political and economic interest to increase property values over the long run. Wouldn’t you agree? I don’t necessarily believe this is the best state of affairs, but it is what we currently have.
This reminds me of the “social justice” claims that always happen around these issues. Less desirable areas give lower income and younger people good entry points to home ownership. Buying a home close to a freeway, busy road, airport, etc. is a strategic choice for many. These people are not in need of social justice warriors.
Yes. Most airports are built in outlying areas, with low population density. Often buying farmland. People than move in around the airport, and then complain about the airport.
I’m from London and have travelled through Heathrow a lot, an expansion has been long overdue and is not only nessecary but essential for continued growth through the 21st century. I can understand why people are against expansion (air quality, noise and traffic) but the benefits far outweigh the costs.
@@Buildbeautiful I always get triggered by that logic and it is always the same no matter which project. Everyone would hate a freeway, train line, airport, wind farm, solar farm, hydroelectric plant, etc. if build in ones backyard. Does that mean we shouldn't be building anything and live in a cave or what? We need infrastructure and as long as the people get an appropriate compensation for their lost land/lost value of real estate there is nothing wrong with building it.
@@Mike25654 The problem with airports is that they're dangerously loud (actually causing hearing loss), they require vast amounts of land compared to other public works, they drastically increase traffic in an area, and they are some of the largest sources of pollution on Earth. Having one within a mile of your home can be a nightmare.
Kawaii Dere Heathrow was built in 1929, Back then it was just farmland and orchards. The homes were built after the war and after Heathrow expansion into a major Airport.
Kawaii, usually airports popup first, then an entire community popsup to support the airport. Even if that was the case, like with Heathrow that *some* housing was built before it was used for civilians in the 40s. Since it switched from military use to civilian use in the 40s, Heathrow has been expanding every year, and its *not* going to stop. Now, very few people who bought a house near Heathrow before it was made into a civilian aiport, are alive. Let's say people were alive when it was made into a civilian airport in the 40s, they would be in their 90s at least today. People have chosen to live next to a friggin airport! It's like choosing a sea front location for your home, and complaining about the boats, or seagulls making noise. Sorry, you have chosen to live there, you have no right to complain.
@@GD1082 "nobody" LCCs? Anyway, everyone wants to go to Hnd, but not everyone can. That's why Nrt is needed. Just yesterday, it applied to build the 3rd runway and extend an existing ones .
Heathrow is bursting at the seams. They have to do something. When they added an extra runway at Vancouver International the deal was that it would be used for landings only unless absolutely necessary. The prevailing winds mean that most takeoffs are to the west, over the ocean, but takeoffs from 26 Right would get close to a posh residential area. I've seen airports where new runways are so far away that they almost look like a different airport (Schiphol, Sheremetevo).
Schiphol is intersting in that it gradually moves out further and futher from Amsterdam. The area behind the remote runway could easily be developed into terminals and stuff.
@ well it's got "city" in the name. I don't know anything about the place but that would be an odd choice of name. 100000 isnt really a criterion as far as I know. How about we compromise by calling it a town? 😁
Every time I fly into Heathrow, we typically spend 20 minutes in the holding pattern, before getting into the arrival pattern. I'm sure that the 3rd runway would allow flights to be routed straight into the arrival pattern. The video about O'Hare is very dated, since the airport now has 5 east-west runways. The new configuration has reduced the need for holding patterns or long arrival patterns.
i´ve lived in a landingzone for 7 years, even so that the landinglights of the planes litup my room while flying over our house but it never boderd me, it actualy kind of comforted me since i new the world still going while i was in bed :)
Same, once you get used to it (lived near an airport my entire life) you just don't give a damn and it becomes background noise. People will mostly reflexively pause their conversations as the plane goes overhead and continue on with their lives, you just sleep through it. If the lights are an issue, get blackout curtains.
Just a note that Crossrail already goes to heathrow from Paddington, they took over an express service, from december they're operating from the centre of London to heathrow.
Ronniebon Crossrail is still under construction and will operate as the Elizabeth Line from sometime best year. TfL rail takes over Paddington to Reading only from Dec-15. Surprised City Beautiful didn’t link to Geoff Marshall 😲
@@constructinglondon No no no, Heathrow Connect services were taken over by crossrail earlier this year. Also Crossrail services are operating out of Liverpool Street towards Shenfield under TFL Rail, with Crossrail branded trains. Only the central and reading sections aren't open yet
He also has "Why Does London Have So Many Airports." All of the _Unfinished London_ series should be interesting to viewers of this channel. ua-cam.com/video/AbAal7jIWQ4/v-deo.html
It's always going to be hard to expand airports built in major cities, but it seems necessary to keep the city competitive in the modern world. For the environmental concerns, I don't think you can prevent flights from happening by not expanding airports. If one airport doesn't have the capacity another one will fill the void.
@@celeduc Not exactly what I was saying. If you want to prevent flights because of their environmental impact you have to come up with a better solution than not expanding airports.
“Skype and a train”, you so realise that most of these flights are continents away from London. Air travel is absolutely necessary, I’d recommend electric ships and electric armies.
Yes, Heathrow is a highly long-haul airport. Lots of flights to and from North America and Asia. Hell, a good portion of the people there arent even going out into the UK. Flights from other European countries usually use Gatwick, Stansted and Luton.
Reminds me of the controversy of EU's Emissions Travel Scheme that carbon taxed flights based on their distance; as Asian airlines would be taxed the heaviest, given the greater distance of Asian countries from Europe
Berlin had been trying to expand, and has met every carbon emission goal known to man kind. But they can't figure out how to make a fire suppression system work either.
@@bobsemple7660 The UK's major industry and export is financial services. A lot of deals are struck in person and productivity requires people at desks or in meeting rooms. This is what the government is aiming to support and grow.
@@bobsemple7660 Western economics aren't going to suddenly start manufacturing again especially if they are shut off from international markets and face tariffs.
@@jgrtrx - EAST of London on the Thames estuary .I know I lived ( near ) there for more than 20 years - there was a plan to build an airport on the Maplin sands , but that was shelved
I'd love to see a post-corona update on some of these recent infrastructure decisions, whether they're going forward or cancelled, how expectations are changing, etc!
I live in Broward County, Florida, and about 5 years ago, we did the same thing. We added another flight strip, and even had a highway go underneath it. It pretty much looks exactly the same as the one in Heathrow. The airport is Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood. What they did to mitigate the noise was to replace the neighboring homes with hurricane impact glass windows, which not only helps mitigate noise, but it also adds value to the home, due to its ability to withstand hurricanes (common in South Florida), add protection from home break-ins, and improve energy efficiency.
But the nuisance, should the airport expand, spreads to an additional 300,000 households with a new runway - they weren't by an airport when they moved, but they are if the airport moves nearer them! 2.2 million people would experience a noise increase with the 3rd runway - many are already affected, but tolerate the existing noise, and just are against the increase. The vast majority of people aren't complaining about the existing noise - unless the noise breaks the agreements that the airport makes with the existing residents every time it makes a change - they are complaining about the airport trying to increase the amount of noise (in violation of legal agreements with the locality. T5 was allowed to happen on the basis that a new runway wouldn't).
Yea but LCY is really crowded a lot of the time, so even that would need expanding. How would you do that considering it's in the middle of a business district.
Sometimes the landing path for LCY takes you right through central London which is a lot of fun. It’s an odd airport though, almost cute in its tininess given the size of London.
Shut up Avery you'll make up anything up to sound relevant
5 років тому+1
"like I'm driving it" So that train constantly stands still and gives you uncontrollable urges to kill people? That's what London driving does after all. ;-)
Regarding noise, there is something to factor into the argument. While it maybe be the case that the average volume generated by aircraft will be lower, it will be affecting more residents spread over a greater area. This is significant because (having worked with customers at various different stages below the flight path), it's not the volume that tends to be the problem. It's the disruption to the ambient background noise. We pretty quickly adjust to constant noise, but it's the sudden spikes - dogs barking, planes overhead - that prick our ears, and that causes most averse reactions; stress, insomnia etc.
My city, Indy, has a gigantic master plan that calls for an additional runway and a potential 2nd terminal building that'd be accessed by underground light rail. Luckily it's got plenty of room to grow, so it should happen whenever traffic picks up (should be helped by the Routes Americas conference). For the time being it's still the best airport in North America for it's 10th consecutive year.
Please do a video of the I-710 extension is Pasadena. That route is interesting at the very least, with residents protesting hard for public transit instead, getting to the point where the Legislature removed 710 from the freeway and expressway system in Pasadena. Would be interesting to see how you would analyze that situation and compare and contrast the pros and cons thereof :).
In the US people are already flying more again as compared to 2019 and in the EU it will be no different once Gouvernments can finally open the borders/lift restrictions again.
@@Mike25654 well of course it was going to go back to normal eventually. i said if aged poorly because covid was first documented within a few weeks of the video being posted and all air travel would shut down just four months after
Traffic is the greatest lunacy at Heathrow. Like ppl who live a 1 to 2 hr drive away outside London are going to heft luggage and children into central London and back out again (adding an hour or so to the journey) to use public transport. Now if Heathrow gets connected to main lines allowing direct services to: Cardiff, Reading, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc it might manage to drive more traffic to the airport AND prevent so many ppl using their car. But our rail network is a freakin nightmare so like that will ever happen!!
What came first the airport or the homes? From what I've learned and is usually omitted, is the fact there was vary little development around the airport when it was first constructed. Many of these residents from the nearby neighborhoods bought homes knowing it's next to a major airport so why are they complaining so much? Especially when the airport was there before they were there.
It's a lot further away than Heathrow. It's also the wrong side of London. Lower population within reasonable travelling distance and not as affluent as a lot the towns and cities to the west of London.
Great video! I have learned so much about city planning through this channel. Keep them coming! Also I'd love to see a video on LA's old metro forgot metro system.
You take the train or Skype but I can tell you from personal experience that video calling someone and meeting someone in person are two very different things. And in alot of places these no outher way to get to your destination without flying.
2:24 There’s actually another airport (London Southend Airport) that is pretty close to where the “???” is on the map. It’s one of the smaller airports that’s only used for short haul European flights.
As someone who probably will be affected by a new runway, living close to the flightpath, I don't support it. It's not just that, but there are other factors to, especially transportation to and from the airport. Travelling on the Piccadilly Line, one of my local tube lines, mostly involves trying to cram in as hard as possible, and it's not helped by tourists who think it's a smart idea to travel to and from the airport with their many suitcases in the middle of rush hour. Not to mention the severe climate effects of the new runway, affecting many people in the areas around Heathrow. Overall, I think the new runway is unacceptable and it should be stopped. But it's already too late...
5 років тому+1
Well it's settled then, because the 'climate effects' are an utter hoax. Any thought of that, while London's old-fashioned heavy industries bellow out massive pollution (about 60-70% of total air pollution even in the Netherlands, much less in the UK where measurements of origin are conveniently not taken) is beyond ludicrous. First fix the factories operating at a 1960's level of technology still, then fix the 20+ year old cars and maybe after that, only maybe, we might look at aeroplanes.
@@uhohhotdog They are doing that at the moment with Crossrail (renamed the Elizabeth Line by the current PM trying to get a knighthood), but as always with modern infrastructure it's been delayed and delayed. It was supposed to open last December, won't open for at least another one, maybe even two.
The Netherlands has a similar situation with Schiphol. Instead they decided to go for a separate airport mostly for leisurely flights which will most likely open in 2020. It's remarkable that this went through though. Most flights from Schiphol go to a destination in Europe, so why aren't they improving ground infrastructure? For example, a high speed train line to Groningen has been proposed multiple times. The train line would've been an ideal plan to connect to Bremen and Hamburg which would've in the future also provided links to Copenhagen and Stockholm with the fixed Fehmarnbelt connection. Yet they won't budge because it's not deemed profitable enough which will stay that way unless they see that we need better infrastructure for trains again for them to be effective.
@@bobsemple7660 Maybe but iirc the whole project was to be funded by the Heathrow Holding company. www.bbc.com/news/business-48668001 If you scroll down it says private funding (sorry that is the best source I could find quickly)
7:45 Woodlands Train Checkpoint: Hold my sovereignty (~12km further than Changi Airport from downtown Singapore) The train station used to be on the edge of downtown but that meant having a stretch of Malaysian railway-operated track (built before Singapore split from Malaysia) cutting through Singapore, which the latter (as a city-state without a domestic main-line rail operator) felt undermined it's sovereignty. It's current location is beside one of the 2 countries' international border crossings, from where only 1 bus goes to the nearest metro station (1km away), but is often already full with people who begun their journey in Malaysia (as that is where that bus service originates)
I agree with the expansion. I am an Urban Planning/ City Planning Bachelor degree holding and I am a graduate student in Sustainability right now. I think we need to look at how we can reduce the carbon emissions and make our engines run cleaner instead of tying to get people to travel less or not drive, this is a losing battle in my opinion.
There is still a chance that the Heathrow expansion might be cancelled after the upcoming general election as the main opposition to the incumbent Conservative party, the Labour party, have said they would cancel the scheme.
Honestly i reckon even then a Corbyn government would be swayed by the economic argument. Every PM since Blair has been sympathetic to the protests and anti-expansion while campaigning and then in office reversed their opinion even May and Boris both who have seats in the local area of the airport
Here in Rio de Janeiro they expanded the passenger terminal of our international airport for the Olympics, but demand fell and today the airport has empty corridors due to this lack of planning. The city's population also prefers to use another airport for domestic flights in the downtown area because it is more easily accessible by public transport, while our main airport is only accessible by an expressway.
I fly twice a year out of LHR. I go to the Italy via Nice Airport. I used to travel by train from London to Taggia with easy changes in Lille and Nice. Then they changed the timetables and now I would have to go via Paris (change stations) and Ventimiglia (long wait to change). I tried it once and now I fly.
A lot of malls in the USA are closing at the same time it’s becoming more common to find mall like store in airports In your opinion is this good planning or bad planning?
Most airports make massive profits from their stores to the point where some airports literally could not turn a profit without them. It makes up a significant portion of total revenue no matter which airport you're looking at. So it's good planning. The people, stuck waiting around before/after a flight, are already there. Nobody flies to a mall to shop at a particular store so you have no induced trips. It's a good idea.
I think having malls as part of airports makes a lot more sense than just out-of-town malls. Shared transport infrastructure, more facilities for flyers, etc.
@@asrr62 the biggest problem with shopping malls is they built too many of them. Now that they are getting weeded out and consolidated there are some that are still doing well.
Here property prices seem to go up whenever airports are proposed. "Only 5 km from air airport" or "Walking distance from new airport" is used as a selling point by builders.
two other arguments to consider.... 1. what is being extended is the runway rather than the airport terminal... there is an argument that goes: an extra runway is for increasing safety of existing traffic not for adding new traffic... air-travel volumes will increase anyway, but as it stands we are slowly decreasing safety margins to allow more dangerous (faster/steeper) landings, an extra runway will give us the margin needed to return to a safer operation. 2. what alternatives are there to airplanes, those hopping over to Europe will use London City, most people traveling from Heathrow are Long-haulers, they will just end up using airports further out... how will they reach them, by car? (remember that in the UK most trains are also still running on diesel)... is that really greener? quieter?
Yes, you are right. Jay Foreman is in fact much much funnier. But that's not because you are unfunny but because Jay Foreman is possibly the funniest man on youtube.
In Hong Kong the situation is even worse. Apart from factors you mentioned in the video, the expansion of Hong Kong International Airport requires 650 hectares of land from reclamation. The authority isn't dealing with the air space issues too, which means that the 3rd runway of the airport might be underutilized.
The problem with the UK is that it is London centric. Everything has to be London. Most of the infrastructure points to London, however the Uk is a small island and would benefit spreading commerce and industry around the UK thus providing a greater economical diversity and balance around the UK. For example now. To get from Heathrow to the city or canary wharf it can take 2 hours. 2 hours in other places you could of got from Leeds to Birmingham or Liverpool.
As a Londoner I fully agree and it's so annoying! I spent my happy Uni years in Aberystwyth, which by virtue of being in central Wales might as well have been considered the middle of nowhere by the transport system. Every international student would have to arrive at London first (or Birmingham if they were lucky), before going across country. It pissed off a lot of people and I would come up with clever transport links linking North and South Wales in my head for fun. Aberystwyth to me was a perfect example of a thriving small town with everything you needed and strong identity, that did not need tons more investment or growth to succeed, but could have benefitted from better planning and links to make it easier for visitors. The sad truth is that there are towns like this all over the UK and tourists never bother visiting because they're 'stuck' in London.
That is why I believe in a federalised UK with regional governments these can develop there own big cities and increase investment and get businesses to go there. However when you say to me we need to stop companies from going to London I am like what you don't hurt your greatest asset to try and help your other assets what you do is you improve all your assets to compete with your greatest asset
Boscombe Down which is about 80 miles from London sits right on A303 has a railway track bed from airfield to connection on Salisbury to Waterloo ,if connected 50 mins,long runway,airfield could be used certain times of day or split into two for civilian and military use,it's got to be cheaper and happier for people living around Heathrow
I've always lived under the landing approach zone for airports no matter where I've lived-Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, West Palm Beach. And I've always loved the sounds of incoming flights on approach. Be it at night in bee, or in the morning and throughout the day. But I also love the sound of passing traffic near major land arteries no matter the time of day/night, distant or near thunder, etc., the sounds if the city or wildlife in the day or at night-I just love the sounds of life, human or nonhuman.
London is hardly falling behind other major European cities, it's rapidly becoming the capital of planet earth. It's population is booming, the international super rich are moving there snd the locals can't afford to live there. However this isn't enough for some people. I would guess though that the majority of Londoners don't want this. Who wants to live in a huge wet version of Dubai? There are also arguments that Heathrow expansion would benefit other parts of the UK, the argument being that regional airports would get more flights to London, and also connect to flights internationally. However there are no constraints in connecting to other European hubs, if we have unlimited access to Heathrow that will likely reduce the flights from regional airports to other hubs and lead to all flights going to Heathrow. Put it this way, if you're a multinational company based in Edinburgh and all your international flights connect through Heathrow how long before you move your HQ to near London and just cut out the connecting flight. So the business goes to London along with the jobs, and the concentration of wealth in London continues.
The people that live next to HeathrowAirport should not complain. At least Heathrow is still fair in the timing. Why are they even houses near any airport
Many of the reasons noise will decline has nothing to do with the runway, so using it as an argument around the runway doesn't make sense. For instance, not adding a new runway doesn't prevent planes from being retired and replaced with newer, quieter planes. I'm sad BS wasn't called on this argument.
In the long term that looks like the closest the city could get to a "Boris Island" airport, with the advantage of it's runway being closer to the sea, minimising the land area that's affected by aircraft's noise pollution
Repcing terminal 4 with a runway could work Heathrow also has a huge issue as it has 5 domestic destinations compared to Amsterdam’s 21 UK destinations. It’s a long haul only airport right now and short haul expansion is probably what they need.
For smaller planes that could help. But for larger planes, the runways would be too close together, wake turbulence would bleed over from the adjacent runway, following planes need to wait that out, and RIP capacity.
Gatwick's plans are far simpler and quicker to build than Heathrow's, the noise issues are far less, it's better connected by public transport, and it also spreads the load by having two serious hub airports with 70-80 million passengers/year rather than putting all eggs in one monopolising mega-hub with 120 million pax/yr and some smaller 10-20 million/yr airports (a lot of the new traffic at Heathrow would just be existing traffic at Gatwick moved).
LAX is a Cluster Fudge. I remember when it was single level and the LOONG construction required in the 70s and 80s to add the upper deck. Only recently has the inner lower level curb lanes been reserved for the more frequent shuttle buses to reduce congestion. Of course the taxi lobby kept the Metro rail station nowhere near the terminals. It's an airport to avoid. I fly into LGB whenever I can instead.
Why do people regularly build homes near airports and then complain when those airports grow and create more noise? One would think that if you buy on the cheep, you get what you get.
Now that Boris Johnson is Prime Minister, I wonder whether he'll try to push through the Thames Estuary island airport idea which he promoted when he was Mayor of London.
Here in Salt Lake City, they are building a whole new international airport right next to the current (soon to be old) one. Something nice about our airport is that it is quite close to the city, and it has a light rail station next to terminal 1. A few stops down the line it also connects to the heavy rail system. Amtrak and Greyhound also connect nearby too. There is even a small third party bus that will take people from Salt Lake City all the way down to the southern city of Saint George. However environmental concerns are great in the city too. The state has been wanting to build an inland port right next to the airport that was approved without the consent of the city whose borders it would be in. It would also encroach upon marshland and wildlife areas near the the dying Great Salt Lake. Protesters have been vocal about the natural and emission impacts of this inland port.
One of the major objections to the proposed third runway that you failed to mention is that it would obliterate a number of ancient villages. These villages have their origins over 1000 years ago and a number of their buildings are several hundred years old. The question is, should short term convenience (based on the stated need to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the lack of a replacement for aircraft) against the continued survival of ancient communities?
It definitely should. Heathrow is what allows London to have so much global power. And, if Heathrow expands they’ll pump money in to making the surrounding area nicer so it’s a win win
All, or almost all, of the freight at Heathrow is using baggage space in passenger flights. The cargo planes to London go somewhere like Stansted where there's far cheaper landing fees, and lots of free slots.
In regards to the noise, honestly, you just get used to it. I grew up and have lived near an international airport my entire life. Unless you are talking to someone, you just tune it out as background noise, briefly pause the conversation as the plane goes overhead, then continue with your conversation.
My personal opinion is that an opportunity was missed by not placing the new runway at Gatwick. Like Heathrow, Gatwick airport has excellent direct road and rail links to central London, however there is far more space to expand which, in turn, would put Gatwick in an excellent position to become London's premier flight hub in the future.
I have to say you do the best job at lauding your sponsors. We all see them in these UA-cam videos. I've actually gotten 3 subscriptions due to your "selling" of them. Great job! I wish you had a daily show but with the kids and the PhD thing it's nowhere near possible. Take care!
Let's remember that London is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world and the most popular European destination for Americans. At the same time, Brits travel to the U.S. in large numbers. Any time I travel to Las Vegas, I see scads of U.K. passports. The only practical means of travel between the U.K. and North America is by air. People don't have enough vacation to cross the Atlantic by ship one way, let alone both ways.
Here in Lisbon it is being considered to build a new airport, since the existing one is also surrounded by buildings and can't be expanded. This would consist on adapting a military airport to the public, but the main issues are the need to cross the river and that it would affect bird migration patterns :/
In Toronto flight paths were altered in 2012 to tighten approach paths. This may have resulted in fewer impacted residents, however those few residents who have been affected are complaining more often and louder than before.
Wonder about this question now? Seems like a great time to address existing issues in infrastructure. There is now a real chance of shaking up what was considered the future as once what was is no more.
😩" Many of these landlocked airports foresaw the need to expand, years ago, but didn't buy ought surrounding residential and businesses. Here we are in the 21st century with several major airports, including Heathrow and O'hare still dealing with the same expansion and noise issues occurring before 2000. I love how (DIA) Denver International Airport made the wise decision to relocate tens of miles beyond it's growing namesake city to a vast undeveloped area without nearby surrounding development. Which allows for the airport's unencumbered development for near and long-term necessary expansion. By contrast, especially with the fastest-growing urban regions, many of the U.S. largest airport's have not kept pace with surrounding commercial and residential growth requiring many to ' shoehorn ' expansion and modernization into their existing footprints. "
Well until a train is able to get from London to Shanghai in 11 hours for the same price as the flight, we're kinda stuck with planes. Air travel growth is pretty much inevitable as the world becomes more developed and globalized. The best option for us in turn is to continue to make planes more fuel efficient and encourage development of electric power planes. In addition, continue to reduce car and factory emissions, encourage public transportation, and switch to renewable energy.
Living 10 minutes from Dulles airport I have planes going over my house 24/7 and it's so funny to me when I visit grandparents down in Lynchburg Virginia who have a plane flyover maybe once a year and it's usually a military plane
![Lp. Сердце Вселенной #60 РОЖДЕНИЕ ЛОЛОЛОШКИ [Финал] • Майнкрафт](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/YoR0pAV9FVQ/mqdefault.jpg)
Cities are expanding or building new airports all over the world. Any projects happening where you are?
Lanseria airport in Johannesburg has been expanding over the last few years.
Would you consider a video on sidewalk labs/Portlands redevelopment in Toronto?
Maybe? I honestly hadn't heard about it until you mentioned it. But maybe if I get a chance to visit Toronto I will.
They don't need to expand the airport. After reaching peak oil, both economy and air travel will collapse. Just the opposite, we need to decrease our economy, because it's environmentally unsustainable.
Two years ago, the airport at Point-A-Pitre, Guadeloupe underwent a massive expansion, which included extending a runway to accommodate the A380.
Wait. This isn't Wendover Productions...
It's a video about airports not airplanes. There is a connection but not enough.
No, this is Patrick.
Wendover Productions hello there
@@Wendoverproductions There you go everything is balanced as it should be.
No shit Sherlock. Is it so shocking that another channel made something aviation related??? R/whoosh
"We're all just flying more." Not anymore...
[Insert obligatory post about Wendover here.]
Wendover Grrrr, Middle Class Grrrr, HS2 Grrr, NIMBY Grrrrrr!!! Isn’t living near Aylesbury bad enough already?!!! Grrrrr!! 😡👎🏻😉😂😂
I was thinking of doing that, but it's late at night and I'm tired so it would probably only be half as interesting as it could be.
"We can only hope that we'll come to our senses and hop on Skype"
Oh, how times have changed
More like Webex and Zoom
Teams mostly.
It's also incredibly and ironically foolish. Heathrow caters to the long haul market. Because of our shared language, Americans and Canadians use the British Isles to connect to other places in the Old World. Trains obviously cannot fix that problem and it is completely and utterly absurd to believe that skype will replace person to person interaction (that should be really obvious three years after COVID), regardless of how much asocial northern Europeans (including Brits) may wish for that to happen.
If another runway isn't built at a London airport, the city's airports (and the airlines based there) will be left behind by airports near cities elsewhere in the British Isles. They will be left behind by airlines operating point to point networks across the Atlantic, despite the fact that that model is notoriously ill-suited to long-haul travel. That's great for those airports and those airlines respectively, but the idea that this would be good for London, or intrinsically better for the environment, is ridiculous.
Yes! Jay Foreman is hilarious. Never thought I'd see you give him a shout-out.
"People don't like hearing loud planes"
Aviation fans: Allow us to introduce ourselves
Hi. I like looking at planes above my house.
I love seeing planes too, but I probably wouldn't if they were further down. They're still so pretty up there
As a young Airforce BRAT I loved being woken up by the roar of afterburners and the smell of burning JP-4 kerosene . My childhood at CFB Landcaster Park and life long military aviation enthusiast.
As an aviation fan leaving near CDG, it can be great but it's also fckng tiring on the long run, especially if you ever want to relax in the calm for more than 10 minutes
@@luclu7_ bonjour! ça va?
Airport noise is one of the reasons my daughter was able to afford a home in South Seattle near Sea-Tac airport. She sure as hell wouldn't have been able to buy a place in other neighborhoods.
Exactly. Why is "keeping property values high" considered an unmitigated good in urban planning? It helps some (sellers and owners) and hurts some (buyers and renters.) If a project lowered your property value, tough luck, who cares?
Andre Tsang because, at least in the US, the sellers and the owners fund the local governments (via property taxes) AND have most of the political power (via the vote). Buyers and renters, more likely to be from out of town get the shaft.
@@goste4 The thing is, property tax is levied in such a way that any individual property's value is mostly unimportant. Tax rate = [levy amount] / [the sum of all real property value] so if one property value or the entire RE market tanks, no biggie, the levy amount will still be assessed. That said, you're not wrong about the "homevoter" phenomenon. I always vote for politicians who work for the greatest good, with total disregard for local property value.
Andre Tsang yes, you’re definitely right; mill levy rates work to somewhat separate the tax receipts of a taxing entity from property values a little. But I don’t think it does so completely. Taxing entities still have an incentive to do things which increase property values as this allows them to advertise lower tax rates while maintaining, or even increasing the levied tax. Wouldn’t you agree?
If property values fall, the levied tax a city receives might not change, but the rate felt by the tax payer does (a higher percentage of the properties value is felt). In the long run, this may the stifle economic activity in the city by driving away those most able to leave (the wealthy) causing other tax receipts to fall (e.g. sales taxes), and other expenditures to rise (e.g. policing, etc). Even the costs associated with collecting the taxes may rise dramatically, as owners decide to abandon the property and not pay the tax. Sure, the city may reposes and auction the property, but that costs money and time. Furthermore, a tanking market makes it likely that no buyer will emerge.
So all I’m saying is that it is in a city government’s political and economic interest to increase property values over the long run. Wouldn’t you agree? I don’t necessarily believe this is the best state of affairs, but it is what we currently have.
This reminds me of the “social justice” claims that always happen around these issues. Less desirable areas give lower income and younger people good entry points to home ownership. Buying a home close to a freeway, busy road, airport, etc. is a strategic choice for many. These people are not in need of social justice warriors.
So you're telling me these people moved RIGHT NEXT to an airport and complain about noise? 🤔
Yes. Most airports are built in outlying areas, with low population density. Often buying farmland. People than move in around the airport, and then complain about the airport.
Yes. Simply put people see a cheap house and buy it and then complain about the reason why it was cheap...
The audacity
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv Exactly
@@AdamSmith-gs2dv The invisible hand of free market will solve the problem. Isn't it, Adam ?
I’m from London and have travelled through Heathrow a lot, an expansion has been long overdue and is not only nessecary but essential for continued growth through the 21st century. I can understand why people are against expansion (air quality, noise and traffic) but the benefits far outweigh the costs.
I heard the mayor of London later blocked the runway project again though
You would be against it if you were among those who would lose their homes
Yes working at an airport makes you hyperaware of economic and humanitarian situations regarding airport expansions.
@@Buildbeautiful I always get triggered by that logic and it is always the same no matter which project. Everyone would hate a freeway, train line, airport, wind farm, solar farm, hydroelectric plant, etc. if build in ones backyard.
Does that mean we shouldn't be building anything and live in a cave or what?
We need infrastructure and as long as the people get an appropriate compensation for their lost land/lost value of real estate there is nothing wrong with building it.
@@Mike25654 The problem with airports is that they're dangerously loud (actually causing hearing loss), they require vast amounts of land compared to other public works, they drastically increase traffic in an area, and they are some of the largest sources of pollution on Earth.
Having one within a mile of your home can be a nightmare.
Nobody:
Developers: “hey, let’s build next to airports”
I think the houses were built first
Kawaii Dere Heathrow was built in 1929, Back then it was just farmland and orchards. The homes were built after the war and after Heathrow expansion into a major Airport.
Kawaii, usually airports popup first, then an entire community popsup to support the airport.
Even if that was the case, like with Heathrow that *some* housing was built before it was used for civilians in the 40s. Since it switched from military use to civilian use in the 40s, Heathrow has been expanding every year, and its *not* going to stop. Now, very few people who bought a house near Heathrow before it was made into a civilian aiport, are alive. Let's say people were alive when it was made into a civilian airport in the 40s, they would be in their 90s at least today.
People have chosen to live next to a friggin airport! It's like choosing a sea front location for your home, and complaining about the boats, or seagulls making noise. Sorry, you have chosen to live there, you have no right to complain.
Kawaii Dere Heathrow has been around since the 1920s as an RAF base
Land is land and people will buy it
Fascinating take on airport expansion. Reminds me of the issues Narita International Airport in Tokyo, just with less blood spilled, literally.
And guess what? Everybody wants to move back to Haneda because nobody likes going to the airport in the boonies.
@@GD1082 "nobody" LCCs? Anyway, everyone wants to go to Hnd, but not everyone can. That's why Nrt is needed. Just yesterday, it applied to build the 3rd runway and extend an existing ones .
Heathrow is bursting at the seams. They have to do something.
When they added an extra runway at Vancouver International the deal was that it would be used for landings only unless absolutely necessary. The prevailing winds mean that most takeoffs are to the west, over the ocean, but takeoffs from 26 Right would get close to a posh residential area. I've seen airports where new runways are so far away that they almost look like a different airport (Schiphol, Sheremetevo).
@ It's no metropolis but to refer to Lelystad as a village is a bit weird don't you think?
@@teunsmits6586
Fewer than 100.000 inhabitants and no regional function, so by any definition it's not a city.
Schiphol is intersting in that it gradually moves out further and futher from Amsterdam. The area behind the remote runway could easily be developed into terminals and stuff.
@ well it's got "city" in the name. I don't know anything about the place but that would be an odd choice of name.
100000 isnt really a criterion as far as I know. How about we compromise by calling it a town? 😁
Every time I fly into Heathrow, we typically spend 20 minutes in the holding pattern, before getting into the arrival pattern. I'm sure that the 3rd runway would allow flights to be routed straight into the arrival pattern.
The video about O'Hare is very dated, since the airport now has 5 east-west runways. The new configuration has reduced the need for holding patterns or long arrival patterns.
i´ve lived in a landingzone for 7 years, even so that the landinglights of the planes litup my room while flying over our house but it never boderd me, it actualy kind of comforted me since i new the world still going while i was in bed :)
Same, once you get used to it (lived near an airport my entire life) you just don't give a damn and it becomes background noise. People will mostly reflexively pause their conversations as the plane goes overhead and continue on with their lives, you just sleep through it. If the lights are an issue, get blackout curtains.
It would be interesting to hear your thoughts on the UK's Crossrail project which would connect to Heathrow.
DramaLlama95 Crossrail will operate from Heathrow. No ifs no buts.
Just a note that Crossrail already goes to heathrow from Paddington, they took over an express service, from december they're operating from the centre of London to heathrow.
Ronniebon Crossrail is still under construction and will operate as the Elizabeth Line from sometime best year. TfL rail takes over Paddington to Reading only from Dec-15.
Surprised City Beautiful didn’t link to Geoff Marshall 😲
@@constructinglondon No no no, Heathrow Connect services were taken over by crossrail earlier this year. Also Crossrail services are operating out of Liverpool Street towards Shenfield under TFL Rail, with Crossrail branded trains.
Only the central and reading sections aren't open yet
@@constructinglondon parts of it are already open
Jay foreman's video is a great recommendation!
Jay's videos are amazing!
It always makes me excited to find out one of the channels I like watches other channels I’m subscribed to as well.
Unfortunately he don't upload that often
@@li_tsz_fung it takes longer to make quality videos. I'm alright with that - quality over quantity.
He also has "Why Does London Have So Many Airports." All of the _Unfinished London_ series should be interesting to viewers of this channel. ua-cam.com/video/AbAal7jIWQ4/v-deo.html
It's always going to be hard to expand airports built in major cities, but it seems necessary to keep the city competitive in the modern world. For the environmental concerns, I don't think you can prevent flights from happening by not expanding airports. If one airport doesn't have the capacity another one will fill the void.
Oh great, the "race to the bottom" argument. Let's just incinerate the atmosphere before someone else does.
@@celeduc Not exactly what I was saying. If you want to prevent flights because of their environmental impact you have to come up with a better solution than not expanding airports.
“Skype and a train”, you so realise that most of these flights are continents away from London. Air travel is absolutely necessary, I’d recommend electric ships and electric armies.
Yes, Heathrow is a highly long-haul airport. Lots of flights to and from North America and Asia. Hell, a good portion of the people there arent even going out into the UK. Flights from other European countries usually use Gatwick, Stansted and Luton.
That doesn't really make skype impossible though does it?
Plenty of business trip are not though - he does have a point. We're still too reliant on face-to-face business practice.
@@dog-ez2nu - which are just excuses for golfin', drinkin' and whorin'.
Reminds me of the controversy of EU's Emissions Travel Scheme that carbon taxed flights based on their distance; as Asian airlines would be taxed the heaviest, given the greater distance of Asian countries from Europe
Berlin had been trying to expand, and has met every carbon emission goal known to man kind. But they can't figure out how to make a fire suppression system work either.
Well, if the Prussians can't figure it out, they should ring up the folks at CERN. Those people are storing antimatter, ffs! They can do ANYTHING!
Government: “We need to maintain a hub status to help global business”.
Same government: pushing for no-deal Brexit.
When you began talking about Heathrow, Foreman was the very first person that came to my mind. As soon as you said Airbus 380, I imagined Wendover lol
"Britain is falling behind in business with emerging markets" then goes ahead and shuns their most important established markets
@@bobsemple7660 The UK's major industry and export is financial services. A lot of deals are struck in person and productivity requires people at desks or in meeting rooms. This is what the government is aiming to support and grow.
@@matsui90 which is why brexit is especially stupid
@@bobsemple7660 Western economics aren't going to suddenly start manufacturing again especially if they are shut off from international markets and face tariffs.
There is far more to the world than Europe, Brexit allows us to reconnect with our allies in the far reaches of the world! It is a very exciting time!
Brexit is the best thing to happen to the 🇬🇧 in a long, long time! So many opportunities await us outside the shackles of the EU!
4:41 You properly meant the A350, instead of the A380 when talking about the newest most quiet generation of planes...
And you probably meant "probably" rather than "properly".
yeah, A350 is quieter then a A380
I took the A380 before & remember it's still _slightly_ quieter than the B777 though
There is also London Southend airport, located where the “??? Airport” was on the map
I think Southend is located on the north side of the Thames Estuary.
Michael McGuinness not there’s not - it’s north of the estuary
@@jgrtrx - EAST of London on the Thames estuary .I know I lived ( near ) there for more than 20 years - there was a plan to build an airport on the Maplin sands , but that was shelved
And London Biggin Hill Airport if you wanna get specific
Michael McGuinness London Southend Airport and Biggin hill airport are not very active
I'd love to see a post-corona update on some of these recent infrastructure decisions, whether they're going forward or cancelled, how expectations are changing, etc!
1:58 "and also we're all just flying more now than ever before". Uploaded November 2019... well, that did not age well
Good on you for linking Jays video series, all his london videos are great and under-viewed in my opinion. Much support from the states
I live in Broward County, Florida, and about 5 years ago, we did the same thing. We added another flight strip, and even had a highway go underneath it. It pretty much looks exactly the same as the one in Heathrow. The airport is Ft. Lauderdale/Hollywood. What they did to mitigate the noise was to replace the neighboring homes with hurricane impact glass windows, which not only helps mitigate noise, but it also adds value to the home, due to its ability to withstand hurricanes (common in South Florida), add protection from home break-ins, and improve energy efficiency.
If you don’t want to hear airport noise, don’t move by an airport. I don’t think people who move to the nuisance should be catered to.
But the nuisance, should the airport expand, spreads to an additional 300,000 households with a new runway - they weren't by an airport when they moved, but they are if the airport moves nearer them! 2.2 million people would experience a noise increase with the 3rd runway - many are already affected, but tolerate the existing noise, and just are against the increase.
The vast majority of people aren't complaining about the existing noise - unless the noise breaks the agreements that the airport makes with the existing residents every time it makes a change - they are complaining about the airport trying to increase the amount of noise (in violation of legal agreements with the locality. T5 was allowed to happen on the basis that a new runway wouldn't).
Wendover won't be happy about you getting on his turf...
you mean his runway
Nice.
Wendover would be out of his zone to try to take on City Beautiful.
Map men map men map map men men men men men
too many men, and not enough map
map men, map men, map map map men men men men men men men...
MEN
MEN
MEN
MEN
MEN
MEN
Except this one is part of "Unfinished London" series, not the "Map men" series
map men map men map map map men men
Heathrow is nice but I like London City's location within London. Convenient location and I can ride the DLR and act like I'm driving it
so true lol
Yea but LCY is really crowded a lot of the time, so even that would need expanding. How would you do that considering it's in the middle of a business district.
Sometimes the landing path for LCY takes you right through central London which is a lot of fun.
It’s an odd airport though, almost cute in its tininess given the size of London.
Shut up Avery you'll make up anything up to sound relevant
"like I'm driving it"
So that train constantly stands still and gives you uncontrollable urges to kill people? That's what London driving does after all. ;-)
Regarding noise, there is something to factor into the argument. While it maybe be the case that the average volume generated by aircraft will be lower, it will be affecting more residents spread over a greater area.
This is significant because (having worked with customers at various different stages below the flight path), it's not the volume that tends to be the problem. It's the disruption to the ambient background noise. We pretty quickly adjust to constant noise, but it's the sudden spikes - dogs barking, planes overhead - that prick our ears, and that causes most averse reactions; stress, insomnia etc.
My city, Indy, has a gigantic master plan that calls for an additional runway and a potential 2nd terminal building that'd be accessed by underground light rail. Luckily it's got plenty of room to grow, so it should happen whenever traffic picks up (should be helped by the Routes Americas conference). For the time being it's still the best airport in North America for it's 10th consecutive year.
Love the link to Jay Foreman. I really have enjoyed his work over the years.
Please do a video of the I-710 extension is Pasadena. That route is interesting at the very least, with residents protesting hard for public transit instead, getting to the point where the Legislature removed 710 from the freeway and expressway system in Pasadena. Would be interesting to see how you would analyze that situation and compare and contrast the pros and cons thereof :).
WHY DO WE NEED MORE HIGHWAYS IN LOS ANGELES
>We’re all flying now more than ever before
Well, this aged poorly.
In the US people are already flying more again as compared to 2019 and in the EU it will be no different once Gouvernments can finally open the borders/lift restrictions again.
@@Mike25654 well of course it was going to go back to normal eventually. i said if aged poorly because covid was first documented within a few weeks of the video being posted and all air travel would shut down just four months after
@@samosmapper9687 Sorry, in that case I misunderstood you.
Traffic is the greatest lunacy at Heathrow. Like ppl who live a 1 to 2 hr drive away outside London are going to heft luggage and children into central London and back out again (adding an hour or so to the journey) to use public transport. Now if Heathrow gets connected to main lines allowing direct services to: Cardiff, Reading, Portsmouth, Birmingham, Manchester, Liverpool etc it might manage to drive more traffic to the airport AND prevent so many ppl using their car. But our rail network is a freakin nightmare so like that will ever happen!!
That's already happening with the Cross rail/Elizabeth line project. Crossrail with offer services from the airport out the Reading
What came first the airport or the homes? From what I've learned and is usually omitted, is the fact there was vary little development around the airport when it was first constructed. Many of these residents from the nearby neighborhoods bought homes knowing it's next to a major airport so why are they complaining so much? Especially when the airport was there before they were there.
Why not Southend? Southend is relatively close to London, and it already has a train station.
Kanal Q Presumably because nobody wants to go near Southend on Sea, lol
@@perspii2808 Are there too many seagulls there? Or anything?
It's a lot further away than Heathrow. It's also the wrong side of London. Lower population within reasonable travelling distance and not as affluent as a lot the towns and cities to the west of London.
It's really small. Could not cope with more passengers with out major expansion which would probably have push back from the local residents.
Great video! I have learned so much about city planning through this channel. Keep them coming! Also I'd love to see a video on LA's old metro forgot metro system.
You take the train or Skype
but I can tell you from personal experience that video calling someone and meeting someone in person are two very different things.
And in alot of places these no outher way to get to your destination without flying.
2:24 There’s actually another airport (London Southend Airport) that is pretty close to where the “???” is on the map. It’s one of the smaller airports that’s only used for short haul European flights.
As someone who probably will be affected by a new runway, living close to the flightpath, I don't support it. It's not just that, but there are other factors to, especially transportation to and from the airport. Travelling on the Piccadilly Line, one of my local tube lines, mostly involves trying to cram in as hard as possible, and it's not helped by tourists who think it's a smart idea to travel to and from the airport with their many suitcases in the middle of rush hour. Not to mention the severe climate effects of the new runway, affecting many people in the areas around Heathrow. Overall, I think the new runway is unacceptable and it should be stopped. But it's already too late...
Well it's settled then, because the 'climate effects' are an utter hoax. Any thought of that, while London's old-fashioned heavy industries bellow out massive pollution (about 60-70% of total air pollution even in the Netherlands, much less in the UK where measurements of origin are conveniently not taken) is beyond ludicrous.
First fix the factories operating at a 1960's level of technology still, then fix the 20+ year old cars and maybe after that, only maybe, we might look at aeroplanes.
So it sounds like they need to expand their rail system.
@@uhohhotdog They are doing that at the moment with Crossrail (renamed the Elizabeth Line by the current PM trying to get a knighthood), but as always with modern infrastructure it's been delayed and delayed. It was supposed to open last December, won't open for at least another one, maybe even two.
@ Good argument! I get your point, but building a whole new runway won't help.
Just have the gov. buy the surrounding houses for double their market value. Easy. I'm sure the Queen can sell a couple golden toilets.
She has no golden toilets. But she does have expensive horses and corgis.
Great video, been watching your stuff for a while now but I never thought I'd see my hometown in one of your videos (3.39)
I'm trying to mention or show everyone's hometown in my videos. I have a lot of videos to go...
Please talk more about airport infrastructure design and planning. It's an amazing topic! Ohare is a perfect example with all its renovations going on
The Netherlands has a similar situation with Schiphol. Instead they decided to go for a separate airport mostly for leisurely flights which will most likely open in 2020. It's remarkable that this went through though. Most flights from Schiphol go to a destination in Europe, so why aren't they improving ground infrastructure? For example, a high speed train line to Groningen has been proposed multiple times. The train line would've been an ideal plan to connect to Bremen and Hamburg which would've in the future also provided links to Copenhagen and Stockholm with the fixed Fehmarnbelt connection. Yet they won't budge because it's not deemed profitable enough which will stay that way unless they see that we need better infrastructure for trains again for them to be effective.
Fully agree. When the inter-Europe train system works well, it works really well and is often the most fun way to travel the continent.
It would be easier to expand Gatwick because less homes are being demolished and more land to build the terminal
Would like to mention that LHR is owned by a private company. So the UK government isn't actually going to be paying for any of the upgrade works.
@@bobsemple7660 Maybe but iirc the whole project was to be funded by the Heathrow Holding company.
www.bbc.com/news/business-48668001
If you scroll down it says private funding (sorry that is the best source I could find quickly)
7:45 Woodlands Train Checkpoint: Hold my sovereignty (~12km further than Changi Airport from downtown Singapore) The train station used to be on the edge of downtown but that meant having a stretch of Malaysian railway-operated track (built before Singapore split from Malaysia) cutting through Singapore, which the latter (as a city-state without a domestic main-line rail operator) felt undermined it's sovereignty. It's current location is beside one of the 2 countries' international border crossings, from where only 1 bus goes to the nearest metro station (1km away), but is often already full with people who begun their journey in Malaysia (as that is where that bus service originates)
I feel like because of the COVID19, this video has become almost irrelevant. Feel free to comment.
I agree with the expansion. I am an Urban Planning/ City Planning Bachelor degree holding and I am a graduate student in Sustainability right now. I think we need to look at how we can reduce the carbon emissions and make our engines run cleaner instead of tying to get people to travel less or not drive, this is a losing battle in my opinion.
You must be american
A metro increases property values. An airport reduces them. That’s the thing. Ppl have to sell if they think they are facing noise.
Absolutely love the content! Keep it coming!!
There is still a chance that the Heathrow expansion might be cancelled after the upcoming general election as the main opposition to the incumbent Conservative party, the Labour party, have said they would cancel the scheme.
@Insert Name Here unless he somehow gets the lib Dems to back him but that's never going to happen.
I was just covering all the bases
Honestly i reckon even then a Corbyn government would be swayed by the economic argument. Every PM since Blair has been sympathetic to the protests and anti-expansion while campaigning and then in office reversed their opinion even May and Boris both who have seats in the local area of the airport
Labour is doing worse in the polls than the last election. Hell it's likely they will lose seats to the Lib Dems
Labour are borderline unelectable with Corbyn incharge
Here in Rio de Janeiro they expanded the passenger terminal of our international airport for the Olympics, but demand fell and today the airport has empty corridors due to this lack of planning. The city's population also prefers to use another airport for domestic flights in the downtown area because it is more easily accessible by public transport, while our main airport is only accessible by an expressway.
Shout out for showing Ukrainian Railways at 7:55
I fly twice a year out of LHR. I go to the Italy via Nice Airport. I used to travel by train from London to Taggia with easy changes in Lille and Nice. Then they changed the timetables and now I would have to go via Paris (change stations) and Ventimiglia (long wait to change). I tried it once and now I fly.
A lot of malls in the USA are closing at the same time it’s becoming more common to find mall like store in airports
In your opinion is this good planning or bad planning?
Airports have a captive audience.
Most airports make massive profits from their stores to the point where some airports literally could not turn a profit without them. It makes up a significant portion of total revenue no matter which airport you're looking at. So it's good planning. The people, stuck waiting around before/after a flight, are already there. Nobody flies to a mall to shop at a particular store so you have no induced trips. It's a good idea.
good shopping malls are a failed idea. a product of suburban planning.
I think having malls as part of airports makes a lot more sense than just out-of-town malls. Shared transport infrastructure, more facilities for flyers, etc.
@@asrr62 the biggest problem with shopping malls is they built too many of them. Now that they are getting weeded out and consolidated there are some that are still doing well.
Guys get on your trains to travel from Osaka to London!
Here property prices seem to go up whenever airports are proposed. "Only 5 km from air airport" or "Walking distance from new airport" is used as a selling point by builders.
two other arguments to consider....
1. what is being extended is the runway rather than the airport terminal... there is an argument that goes: an extra runway is for increasing safety of existing traffic not for adding new traffic... air-travel volumes will increase anyway, but as it stands we are slowly decreasing safety margins to allow more dangerous (faster/steeper) landings, an extra runway will give us the margin needed to return to a safer operation.
2. what alternatives are there to airplanes, those hopping over to Europe will use London City, most people traveling from Heathrow are Long-haulers, they will just end up using airports further out... how will they reach them, by car? (remember that in the UK most trains are also still running on diesel)... is that really greener? quieter?
Yes, you are right. Jay Foreman is in fact much much funnier. But that's not because you are unfunny but because Jay Foreman is possibly the funniest man on youtube.
In Hong Kong the situation is even worse. Apart from factors you mentioned in the video, the expansion of Hong Kong International Airport requires 650 hectares of land from reclamation. The authority isn't dealing with the air space issues too, which means that the 3rd runway of the airport might be underutilized.
Great video! Even better content! You really making us proud here in Sactown!
The problem with the UK is that it is London centric. Everything has to be London. Most of the infrastructure points to London, however the Uk is a small island and would benefit spreading commerce and industry around the UK thus providing a greater economical diversity and balance around the UK. For example now. To get from Heathrow to the city or canary wharf it can take 2 hours. 2 hours in other places you could of got from Leeds to Birmingham or Liverpool.
As a Londoner I fully agree and it's so annoying! I spent my happy Uni years in Aberystwyth, which by virtue of being in central Wales might as well have been considered the middle of nowhere by the transport system. Every international student would have to arrive at London first (or Birmingham if they were lucky), before going across country. It pissed off a lot of people and I would come up with clever transport links linking North and South Wales in my head for fun.
Aberystwyth to me was a perfect example of a thriving small town with everything you needed and strong identity, that did not need tons more investment or growth to succeed, but could have benefitted from better planning and links to make it easier for visitors. The sad truth is that there are towns like this all over the UK and tourists never bother visiting because they're 'stuck' in London.
That is why I believe in a federalised UK with regional governments these can develop there own big cities and increase investment and get businesses to go there. However when you say to me we need to stop companies from going to London I am like what you don't hurt your greatest asset to try and help your other assets what you do is you improve all your assets to compete with your greatest asset
There is an airport near my university and its the most annoying thing ever. Classes stop for 10 seconds waiting for the plane to pass.
Even if Heathrow doesn’t expand the extra capacity is going somewhere so it will still be the same emissions and it’s better to keep it in one place
Boscombe Down which is about 80 miles from London sits right on A303 has a railway track bed from airfield to connection on Salisbury to Waterloo ,if connected 50 mins,long runway,airfield could be used certain times of day or split into two for civilian and military use,it's got to be cheaper and happier for people living around Heathrow
I've always lived under the landing approach zone for airports no matter where I've lived-Indianapolis, Colorado Springs, West Palm Beach. And I've always loved the sounds of incoming flights on approach. Be it at night in bee, or in the morning and throughout the day. But I also love the sound of passing traffic near major land arteries no matter the time of day/night, distant or near thunder, etc., the sounds if the city or wildlife in the day or at night-I just love the sounds of life, human or nonhuman.
London is hardly falling behind other major European cities, it's rapidly becoming the capital of planet earth. It's population is booming, the international super rich are moving there snd the locals can't afford to live there. However this isn't enough for some people. I would guess though that the majority of Londoners don't want this. Who wants to live in a huge wet version of Dubai?
There are also arguments that Heathrow expansion would benefit other parts of the UK, the argument being that regional airports would get more flights to London, and also connect to flights internationally. However there are no constraints in connecting to other European hubs, if we have unlimited access to Heathrow that will likely reduce the flights from regional airports to other hubs and lead to all flights going to Heathrow. Put it this way, if you're a multinational company based in Edinburgh and all your international flights connect through Heathrow how long before you move your HQ to near London and just cut out the connecting flight. So the business goes to London along with the jobs, and the concentration of wealth in London continues.
The people that live next to HeathrowAirport should not complain. At least Heathrow is still fair in the timing. Why are they even houses near any airport
Many of the reasons noise will decline has nothing to do with the runway, so using it as an argument around the runway doesn't make sense. For instance, not adding a new runway doesn't prevent planes from being retired and replaced with newer, quieter planes. I'm sad BS wasn't called on this argument.
You missed an Airport...."London Southend"
Antonio Dell'Elce hahahahaha it’s nowhere near London, it’s a dump in pikeyville
And let's not all forget London Oxford Airport
In the long term that looks like the closest the city could get to a "Boris Island" airport, with the advantage of it's runway being closer to the sea, minimising the land area that's affected by aircraft's noise pollution
It's kinda hard visiting London from my Brooklyn home by train or Skype.
Swim.
You aren't allowed to travel anymore, that's a waste of resources. Welcome to the new order 😂
Repcing terminal 4 with a runway could work
Heathrow also has a huge issue as it has 5 domestic destinations compared to Amsterdam’s 21 UK destinations. It’s a long haul only airport right now and short haul expansion is probably what they need.
Tbh you can drive from london to the 21 destinations but not amsterdam or the netherlands
For smaller planes that could help. But for larger planes, the runways would be too close together, wake turbulence would bleed over from the adjacent runway, following planes need to wait that out, and RIP capacity.
They should just look into expanding into Gatwick or Standsted or maybe tell airlines outside the UK to fly to Gatwick or Standsted.
Gatwick's plans are far simpler and quicker to build than Heathrow's, the noise issues are far less, it's better connected by public transport, and it also spreads the load by having two serious hub airports with 70-80 million passengers/year rather than putting all eggs in one monopolising mega-hub with 120 million pax/yr and some smaller 10-20 million/yr airports (a lot of the new traffic at Heathrow would just be existing traffic at Gatwick moved).
Si Hollett what about a high speed rail link?
Or they can just move on to a new airport like Istanbul or Beijing instead of pouring money down the drain on squeezing in extra runways.
LAX is a Cluster Fudge. I remember when it was single level and the LOONG construction required in the 70s and 80s to add the upper deck. Only recently has the inner lower level curb lanes been reserved for the more frequent shuttle buses to reduce congestion.
Of course the taxi lobby kept the Metro rail station nowhere near the terminals.
It's an airport to avoid. I fly into LGB whenever I can instead.
Why do people regularly build homes near airports and then complain when those airports grow and create more noise? One would think that if you buy on the cheep, you get what you get.
Now that Boris Johnson is Prime Minister, I wonder whether he'll try to push through the Thames Estuary island airport idea which he promoted when he was Mayor of London.
Here in Salt Lake City, they are building a whole new international airport right next to the current (soon to be old) one. Something nice about our airport is that it is quite close to the city, and it has a light rail station next to terminal 1. A few stops down the line it also connects to the heavy rail system. Amtrak and Greyhound also connect nearby too. There is even a small third party bus that will take people from Salt Lake City all the way down to the southern city of Saint George.
However environmental concerns are great in the city too. The state has been wanting to build an inland port right next to the airport that was approved without the consent of the city whose borders it would be in. It would also encroach upon marshland and wildlife areas near the the dying Great Salt Lake. Protesters have been vocal about the natural and emission impacts of this inland port.
Yes, it should expand. It will bring more economic growth to the Uk and it *needs* to expand, it is already working at 98% capacity
What question is was the land around have houses around the airport when Heathrow when it was first built?
One of the major objections to the proposed third runway that you failed to mention is that it would obliterate a number of ancient villages. These villages have their origins over 1000 years ago and a number of their buildings are several hundred years old.
The question is, should short term convenience (based on the stated need to reduce the use of fossil fuels and the lack of a replacement for aircraft) against the continued survival of ancient communities?
It definitely should. Heathrow is what allows London to have so much global power. And, if Heathrow expands they’ll pump money in to making the surrounding area nicer so it’s a win win
How about separating freight traffic into a different location?
Like Paris?
All, or almost all, of the freight at Heathrow is using baggage space in passenger flights. The cargo planes to London go somewhere like Stansted where there's far cheaper landing fees, and lots of free slots.
In regards to the noise, honestly, you just get used to it. I grew up and have lived near an international airport my entire life. Unless you are talking to someone, you just tune it out as background noise, briefly pause the conversation as the plane goes overhead, then continue with your conversation.
My personal opinion is that an opportunity was missed by not placing the new runway at Gatwick. Like Heathrow, Gatwick airport has excellent direct road and rail links to central London, however there is far more space to expand which, in turn, would put Gatwick in an excellent position to become London's premier flight hub in the future.
I have to say you do the best job at lauding your sponsors. We all see them in these UA-cam videos. I've actually gotten 3 subscriptions due to your "selling" of them. Great job! I wish you had a daily show but with the kids and the PhD thing it's nowhere near possible. Take care!
Let's remember that London is one of the most popular tourist destinations in the world and the most popular European destination for Americans. At the same time, Brits travel to the U.S. in large numbers. Any time I travel to Las Vegas, I see scads of U.K. passports.
The only practical means of travel between the U.K. and North America is by air. People don't have enough vacation to cross the Atlantic by ship one way, let alone both ways.
Here in Lisbon it is being considered to build a new airport, since the existing one is also surrounded by buildings and can't be expanded. This would consist on adapting a military airport to the public, but the main issues are the need to cross the river and that it would affect bird migration patterns :/
Munich Franz Josef Strauß Airport in Germany is currently expanded as well, both terminal 1, satellite terminal 2 and soon also a 3rd runway
In Toronto flight paths were altered in 2012 to tighten approach paths. This may have resulted in fewer impacted residents, however those few residents who have been affected are complaining more often and louder than before.
Wonder about this question now? Seems like a great time to address existing issues in infrastructure. There is now a real chance of shaking up what was considered the future as once what was is no more.
People will say it's okay to build third runway but not in my back yard.
2:05 I wonder what would the chart look like if you expand it to include 2020 and 2021 (once 2021 is over).
😩" Many of these landlocked airports foresaw the need to expand, years ago, but didn't buy ought surrounding residential and businesses. Here we are in the 21st century with several major airports, including Heathrow and O'hare still dealing with the same expansion and noise issues occurring before 2000. I love how (DIA) Denver International Airport made the wise decision to relocate tens of miles beyond it's growing namesake city to a vast undeveloped area without nearby surrounding development.
Which allows for the airport's unencumbered development for near and long-term necessary expansion. By contrast, especially with the fastest-growing urban regions, many of the U.S. largest airport's have not kept pace with surrounding commercial and residential growth requiring many to ' shoehorn ' expansion and modernization into their existing footprints. "
Well until a train is able to get from London to Shanghai in 11 hours for the same price as the flight, we're kinda stuck with planes. Air travel growth is pretty much inevitable as the world becomes more developed and globalized. The best option for us in turn is to continue to make planes more fuel efficient and encourage development of electric power planes. In addition, continue to reduce car and factory emissions, encourage public transportation, and switch to renewable energy.
Living 10 minutes from Dulles airport I have planes going over my house 24/7 and it's so funny to me when I visit grandparents down in Lynchburg Virginia who have a plane flyover maybe once a year and it's usually a military plane