Heathrow Expansion Threaten Harmondsworth Village

The village of Harmondsworth near Heathrow is living on borrowed time as it could be demolished in the next few years. Ross Miklaszewicz takes a trip to find out about Heathrow's expansion plans ...

[@HarryElmer5245]

The fact is Heathrow was built probably years before most of those people moved so they should have thought about Britain's busiest airport being upgrading right next door to them

[@jacobfletcher-mcinerney285]

pub must be happy for all new customers coming to look at planes

[@BritishTransportSpotter]

As a frequent flyer from Heathrow myself i think that a third runway is essential but it would be a great disappointment to lose such a lovely village

[@viengsamphet]

British Aviation and I'm thinking of a floating runway. It might not work.

[@akmed5020]

I was raised in this village and went to Harmondsworth Primary school. So many good fond memories. Sad to see a village from the medieval era could lose half of its history.

[@captainhuggy]

Sorry to be that person, but maybe QC your video before posting it on KZbin. Have a little listen at 1:07 - did no one think to cut that out?

[@Nilguiri]

Expand Gatwick and build a direct rail link between LHR and LGW. It's only 38 km. How long would a train take to transfer passengers? 15-20 minutes? Problem solved.

[@tobysummers471]

Nilguiri easy. Reopen staines and west drayton railway closed in the sixties and seventies still used upto Colnbrook for frieght. Most of the line is intact. From west drayton a section to the airport could be built in the form of a tunnel or another connection at airport junction. From west drayton travel to reading then north downs line to redhill then gatwick. Could be easily implemented if the north downs line was fully electrified. Is a possibility seeing as hex trains clog up the approach to paddington.

[@michaelscott7166]

Nilguiri Look at it from the Customer's point of view. If you were flying somewhere and needed to transfer to a 2nd flight to get where you are going would you rather do that in the same airport or go through the faff of leaving the airport and paying extra for a train journey to go to a 2nd airport for your onward flight? Especially when you consider in London's case that both Paris CDG and Amsterdam Schipol are major hubs that are within 250 miles of London and offer similar connections.

[@EvanEscher]

It can use the existing tracks from Gatwick to Clapham Junction, then use the Kensington branch that Southern uses, and then onto the tracks that the Heathrow Express, Heathrow Connect & GWR use at Acton/Ealing, and then go into LHR. If it takes the GX 30 minutes to get to Victoria, then it would take about 40-45 minutes from GTW to LHR.

[@Nilguiri]

Yes, that's true, but Michael is right about how faffing around catching a train would put people off using London as an international hub. As soon people hear "via Clapham Junction", forget it! My idea would be to construct a brand new highish-speed track running through a tunnel in a straight line to make a quick, seamless, no-hassle connection between one or more terminal in LHR to the existing LGW station, like a Metro line, so you just go down in a lift and step onto the train. I'm sure you could get a train up to 250 km/h for most of the distance, let's say an average of 200 km/h over the c.40 km as the crow flies which would take 12 minutes. Even if it's 20 minutes, that's not too off-putting if you don't have to go to a separate station and "catch the train" especially if it's free if you show your boarding pass or whatever. At some airports, I've had to walk for at least 20 minutes to get from one gate to another. It would cost a fortune, obviously, but the alternative would be to knock down half a village and build an extra runway at LHR with even more aircraft on final approach directly over London, meanwhile, Gatwick is pretty much in the middle of nowhere... to the north west between Norwood Hill and Charlwood, you could easily whack a new runway in there, build my high speed, terminal to terminal shuttle train, and leave LHR alone.

[@DonConstance]

It's not just Harmondsworth, Sipson too, and all of Longford (where my Aunt lives).

[@anonymousanonymous7250]

What about a new airport on Boris Island?

[@thisisstuart7951]

Got shelfed

[@HomebaseLHR]

Insanely expensive! But if Heathrow needed another expansion, they'd have to move the whole airport.

[@sgthree]

The biggest issue (other than the disruption to tides and potential flooding caused as a result), is that 90% of the UK is on the other side of London to where Boris Island was proposed, so how why would you try and get all that traffic (train, car, bus, spacehopper, or whatever your choice or options are) through and around London, whereas put it to the west of London where most of the country is, you don't cause that extra congestion within the city. As someone who lives in the far south west of England (and I don't mean Wimbledon), putting something on the the side of London will add a huge amount of travel time to get to an airport.

[@Mr79Shahin]

By expanding Heathrow, they’re just delaying the inevitable. Heathrow is not in a sustainable location long-term. They should pursue the Estuary airport, purpose built, rather than trying the “make it fit” approach with Heathrow

[@itsthatsebguy93]

We really ought to expand Gatwick aswell.

[@lollil6424]

Maybe build a new one or upgrade the city airport

[@thesmity31]

So should we never ever destroy anyone's house ever? Should sentimentality beat progress, innovation, the economy etc etc? Should we rebuild the hamlet of Heathrow because at one point someone lived there and kind of liked it? No. At some point, sacrifices will have to be made, and knocking down a few houses (after buying them for £££) is not a relatively big sacrifice. As you said, the older buildings will still be standing, it seems that the residents that would just have to move.

[@rollingtroll]

25% for a forced leave? Doesn't seem half enough. That's 250 for a 200 pound house which leaves you 50 to fix up a new 200 pound house to your liking. 35, 40% seems more resonable in a case like this.

[@TrainDriverSparky]

Anyone else notice the odd edit of the voiceover at 1:06?

[@las1147]

It felt as if I was watching a BBC report haha. Great visualisation there halfway through

[@happysellotape5006]

The government should not be allowed to take homes. They are breaching the human rights of the people of harmondsworth

[@seanofthehead4455]

They should take whatever measures they can to reduce the disruption and damage to people's lives and the local surroundings, but make no mistake, this expansion is crucial for both London and the UK!

[@XFXRyan99QPR]

I understand why people don't want Heathrow to expand but it needs to expand end of!

[@livinglifeform7974]

No it does not. It's already one of the busiest in the world. If you're going to do anything maybe use the other runway at gatwick for smaller planes, or use luton or stanstead instead.

[@TheLewistownTrainspotter8102]

@@livinglifeform7974 It needs to expand because the demands of air traffic today cannot be met by the two runway system.

[@TheAviationistKhizr]

@@livinglifeform7974 small planes don't land at Heathrow. Have you ever seen a Ryanair or something land in LHR? They're all international flights and it's essential to our economy. People are getting their worth. They're just being nostalgic.

[@jacon454]

Are you saying that's more important than people's homes?

[@hellotherekindsir1137]

Heathrow once had six runways in the shape of a star

[@AgnostosGnostos]

More than half the flights to Heathrow are transit. Heathrow is an international hub and the majority of passengers arrive from abroad in Heathrow in order to change a flight for another country. If the Heathrow was mostly serving British people or tourists to Britain then the third runway would be directly beneficial for the British economy and British population. Then the demolition of half the village would be reasonable. In reality Heathrow is a fat cash cow which is milked beyond any reason. Heathrow Airport Holdings Limited, formerly BAA is the United Kingdom-based operator of Heathrow Airport. The ownership of the operator is: Ferrovial 25% (Spanish) Qatar Holding 20% Caisse de dépôt et placement du Québec 12.62% ( Canadian) Government of Singapore Investment Corporation 11.20% Alinda Capital Partners 11.18% China Investment Corporation 10% Universities Superannuation Scheme 10% (UK) For the percentages just check Wikipedia or google. So hundreds of people will loose their homes and will be uprooted for the profits of 90% foreign companies and the convenience of million Heathrow passengers who doesn't really visit Britain. That is the whole story.

[@lux4019]

People always seem to complain about or wonder how we live with all the noise, as someone who has lived by the airport all my life I can tell you it really isn't a bother. It's really just a noise that is normal and you come to accept. Visiting places without this noise just feels... wrong

[@viengsamphet]

Here's a question. Which came first? The village or the airport?

[@p4gash]

Sam Sananikone the village lmao

[@ARJUN_2009_ZOOMER]

Exactly

[@FD-vj6hd]

The airport was there before most of the houses and all of the people, so the airport

[@DavidB5501]

Why not Stansted or Gatwick? They are out in the country, but with good rail connections to London. I've never seen a convincing argument for cramming another runway into Heathrow when Stansted and Gatwick only have one each.

[@Ciaran100]

Gatwick has 2 runways. Only one is currently used though.

[@aidengillag]

Ciaran 100 It's not a runway that could be used simultaneously as a 2 runway operation though. The proximity to one another rules that out. Its only used during maintenance work or other extreme circumstances. Its primary use is as a taxiway.

[@IboCamIbo]

DavidB5501 they're shit

[@DavidB5501]

+Cam Not Cam I've used Gatwick many times. It's a much pleasanter experience than Heathrow, which I think deserves your description better. Transport into London is also quicker, if you can catch the Gatwick Express to Victoria. (Crossrail will make a difference, but Crossrail could also be extended to Stansted, which at the moment doesn't have great transport links.) It would make sense to reserve Heathrow mainly for connecting flights, and develop Gatwick and/or Stansted for UK-destination passengers.)

[@Gorantaylis]

Exactly. For domestic flights especially, people hardly fly to Heathrow.

[@simonyapp]

It takes 30 secs longer to clip the mic on to the jacket and hide the cable.

[@drdewott9154]

Interesting however I feel like there are many alternatives like Expanding one of the other Airports which is hopefully in a more open area and expand that to a point where it will not only be expanding the number of flights to and from London dramatically but also take some of the flights that Heathrow would've normally have. Therefore Giving Heathrow a little more room to wiggle around with time tables and make one of London's other Airports the biggest.

[@Gorantaylis]

If London is to have so many airports then give Gatwick another runway instead of Heathrow for goodness sake.

[@scythal]

TheSharkLord It would be good if not for one thing - Gatwick is too damn far and isn't served by the Tube

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

Scythal but it does have the Thameslink which is like a tube line, it has rail links to other parts of the country too in fact it is better connected than Heathrow

[@rothberg107]

Basle and Geneva airports both have exits into both Switzerland AND France. How about linking Heathrow and Gatwick with a high speed rail link and combine them into a single airport?

[@airplaneplustrainguy8143]

Daniel Rothenberg yeah

[@HDTransport]

It's sad to see half of a village go but to be honest I have to say this. What was there first, Heathrow, or you? They should of expected it tbh. Sorry but that's my opinion.

[@ZenosOsgorma]

why don't we just build a 4th airport on the outer areas of leeds or peterbrough the train links are not that far from london ether if you are traveling for a holiday , infact do we have any large centeral airports?

[@patricksmart5673]

There is an alternative. Manstone near Ramsgate in Kent. The runway is already there, the area needs economic regeneration. Some of the eastbound long haul flights could go from there. I would be quite happy to use it. But no-one has ever asked me what I think. The third runway will mean more congestion, more sheds with beds and it will take too long and cost too much to build. A ludicrous idea.

[@andydavidson2793]

Patrick Smart Good idea but that flat paved area of airport is likely allocated for parking space for the increased customs wait for crossing the English Channel at Dover (Operation Stack Extention) post that thing ,wait a minute we never hear it being talked about... Oh yeah,Brexit.

[@philipcollier263]

Why not ‘Boris Island’ on reclaimed land in the Thames estuary with almost endless room to expand? Hong Kong have done something very similar. It may also mean the LCY could move operations there and free up all that space near Canary Wharf which must be extremely valuable (with the added benefit of not knocking down a historic village).

[@Zauchi]

...have they even thought about traffic?.... if they build in harmondsworth then there would be even more traffic in west drayton which can't even cope with the traffic it has now due to overcrowding the area. Even Stockey road struggles at peak times so I am not sure how they plan on fixing it. The traffic would likely get even longer and flow further into cowley and uxbridge, and with stockley getting backed up at the bottom making the roundabout useless.

[@roadtrolls4403]

1:07 "He..heathrow"

[@rjc0234]

going all hippy dippy here, but what about the history of the local area? is there anything that could be missed or used in the future? regularly progress happens, and then 20 years later they find out that what they changed was needed again. what about the infrastructure around Heathrow? is that going to get a substantial upgrade to? the public transport to heathrow seems appalling, and a dual carriage way to the airport, and only a 4 lane motorway leading to the turnoff (with it narrowing down to 3 lanes just a few miles either side) is a joke. It also looks like the runway is going to plough into businesses, and not just homes. but boy will this be a big change

[@poznanskiszybkowiec_official]

instead of demolishing this beautiful village, just extend piccadilly line/district line and national rail services

[@Michelle_Schu-blacka]

Good news for whoever owns the pub... People will love having a pint and watching the planes. But I still prefer Boris Island to expanding an airport over dense residential areas... It's a disaster waiting to happen

[@mittfh]

Slight hitch with Thames Estuary Airport - Boris Island is far from the first proposed scheme, and all previous ones were not developed. It's on the wrong side of London for most of the country with no transport links, while the estuary is also a migratory bird route, so significantly increasing the risk of bird strikes.

[@ninesquared81]

Boris Island is a non-starter from the get-go. I personally think Gatwick has more potential for expansion than Heathrow, which is hemmed in by 2 motorways. The new runway would involve a cut-and-cover tunnel over the M25 which would cause major disruption.

[@freddiefox.]

Gatwick is also hemmed in by Horley, Crawley, the M23, and Charlwood village. Instead, using the Isle of Grain, or nearby, would provide a large area close to London that is relatively empty. New train and motorway links could easily be constructed into London and the existing motorway network. Yes, it would be insanely expensive, but if we need extra airport capacity so much, then it must pay for it. With a blank canvas, we could build a state-of-the-art 21st century airport. Heathrow could be kept too, if required, or the air traffic moved to the new site and the Heathrow land sold for housing, which would worth several £billion.

[@ninesquared81]

Gary Herring 'Boris Island' seems like a good idea until you know the area. Medway cannot handme an airport. I know they would build a new motorway but have fun connecting that to Junction 1 of the M2, oh and don't forget the Lower Thames Crossing. My favourite idea would be to reinstate and expand Manston Airport on Thanet but it's really too far away from London.

[@cesariojpn]

What happened to Boris Island?

[@HomebaseLHR]

cesariojpn too expensive

[@tonys1636]

Would also be too prone to fog and strong south westerly winds.

[@chatteyj]

Bird strikes as well would be common, not good factors.

[@paulsengupta971]

It's also too far from most of the UK.

[@nobby3265]

Why not add another runway in Gatwick instead as that has plenty of free space. And not to mention where will these people go if this plan ever gets approved in a few years time?

[@JHA854]

As much as it sucks, Heathrow is one of the busiest airports in the world and has only two runways. Airport delays are expensive and have a knock on effect across the globe.

[@jacon454]

Are actually you saying that stopping the delays of people going on holiday are more important than people's homes

[@michaelhunt4445]

What a shame, where do these villagers work? Not at Heathrow do they? Move Heathrow out and the unemployment in the area will rise very significantly. You can't have it all ways.

[@ljphil78]

Reopen Manston airport in Thanet for freight that will clear up some capacity from Gatwick and Heathrow. Then build another runway at Gatwick where there is more open space around the airport. As it stands they are going to knock down loads of houses at Heathrow to build another runway and at the same time there are plans to cover the site of the existing Manston Airport with loads of houses!!!

[@paulsengupta971]

While I agree about re-opening Manston, most of the freight that comes into Heathrow does so on passenger airliners, using hold space which would otherwise be empty. There are very few dedicated freighters flying into Heathrow, it's just too expensive. Compare it with East Midlands.

[@dipanshoe]

I used to visit The Crown every single week. But then I had to move to Watford of my job..... Pathetic

[@970357ers]

For: 1. Demolition of res. to build new/more critical infrastructure has been happening for hundreds of years in the UK (particularly London). 2. 25% over market value compensation! 3. Most residents would have done so since the airport being operational 4. Listed structures will likely be relocated brick-by-brick. 5. Jobs. 6 . Economic growth. Against: 1. We dont like change. 2. CO2, although likely a null point if similar were built elsewhere instead.

[@tobysummers471]

More than that for against. People in the surrounding area cannot sleep because of the drone of planes and the air quality in the whole of hillingdon even as far as uxbridge is affected. Many have asthma. Many years ago when the plan was introduced they said moat of hillingdon would have to relocate as air quality levels wouldn't follow that of regulations. An airport like this should have been built elsewhere.

[@JoshuaHickin]

You do realise Heathrow has strict operating times which don't allow departures between 11pm and 6:30am. Try and understand what your talking about before commenting.

[@tobysummers471]

Joshua Hickin still it's no good for heathrow to operate that way. If anything a new airport is needed to serve 24 hour demands. When heathrow was built nothing much was around the surrounding area.

[@rjc0234]

I was going to ask, are the residents going to get some decent compensation? 25% still seems very low

[@tobysummers471]

rjc0234 yrs they are being moved up to really nice places in the country. Just a shame that a village as nice as this has to go for tarmac and toast rack buildings

[@jemmans]

Nice balanced video. The third runway was part of the original plan when the latest two where built. So locals have always known. Looking at all the comments so far there does not seem to be a huge protest against London Heathrow expansion. I am for it and live 4 miles away.

[@paulsengupta971]

Not really. Heathrow originally had 6 runways, arranged in a star of David pattern, so that take-offs and landings could be made into wind. I say originally, but that was when it was expanded in 1946 into London's official airport. Having two parallel runways in all directions in those days was far in advance of the growth they had at the time!

[@jemmans]

Paul Sengupta yes it is easy to forget just how old Heathrow is. I meant the two where meant to be three but they never got round to the third and post war houses were built when they never should have.

[@HORNETSTV1881]

What about sipson

[@ffchx129]

While I can appreciate that these people don't want their homes flattened, I cannot see how the needs of a few hundred people can possibly compare to the needs of the national economy, and tens of millions of travellers. All very well saying "stop Heathrow expansion", but what do they think the alternative is? A new airport would be expensive and Gatwick is just in the wrong place, as well as being horrid.

[@bakedbeanishdragon]

You've completely ignored the devastating environmental damage.

[@ffchx129]

bakedbeanishdragon So we should all swim to other countries then, should we?

[@bakedbeanishdragon]

That's not a response to what I've said, nor is it what I was suggesting.

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

ffchx what a stupid response he never suggested that, but there are other airports namely Gatwick that can be expanded on and if destroying the environment means destroying the lives of the so called few, the fuck the national economy, we’ve become to obsessive about money

[@tonys1636]

Why not build a new Airport somewhere close to the route of HS2 and make a rail connection?

[@paulsengupta971]

Isn't HS2 supposed to have a spur to Heathrow? But yes, expanding Coventry and then having high speed rail links to London and other major cities would be good!

[@Topboy53]

@@paulsengupta971 HS2 will not have a spur to Heathrow

[@CleversonSantos]

That is modernity at its best...

[@SamSitar]

they should pick up and move for the runway. move them to the opposite side of the half of the town that is staying.

[@ST-mo8ur]

there's people already living on that side of the village

[@boudris]

Interesting video

[@tobysummers471]

I don't live very far away from here. It's such a shame it has to go. Heathrow or BAA have owned the land around the airport for years so it was always going to happen. Only the drone of planes for miles the people cannot sleep. Air quality in the whole borough is crap and many have asthma. People in the area are being moved away up north etc. Longford a village nearby will be gone for good unlike harmondsworth which will be partially demolished just another scare tactic for brexit in the sense that the government don't want Charles de gaulle to be the European hub. The airport is in the wrong place really. Shame there isn't the money or much support for one elsewhere.

[@scythal]

Toby Summers Railway Pics The airport isn't the one at fault here - the villages are in the wrong place. Back when Heathrow Airport was first built, it was in the middle of literally a large empty area.

[@chatteyj]

On the one hand Heathrow expansion makes the most sense as it increases capacity at Britains main hub airport thats the closest to London. But really most big international airports have 4 or 5 runways not 2 or 3. I'm just wondering what the thinking is here? If you want this to be future proof capable of further expansion thats serves the whole of the Uk then a new airport built in a green space possibly next to the future Hs2 would be the best solution. Or expand luton or Stansted both of which could be put own the HS2 route and capable of further expansions in the future.

[@poznanskiszybkowiec_official]

how dare you!!!! london VILLAGE NEEDS TRANSPORT! GIVE THEM A STEAM TRAIN FROM HAMMERSMITH TO THAT LONDON VILLAGE! USING FOWLER 4F AND SAXONIA!

[@HammaneggsAirborne]

American here, I remember hearing talks about a "Boris island" airport which it sounds like is shelved, were there any talks of having something in the fields just east of Upminster, the District line's terminus? It appears to just be a bunch of farmland that would be easier and less troublesome to acquire while not being ridiculously far away.

[@HomebaseLHR]

"Boris Island" would be an airport in the Thames Estuary, where old WWII ships are to be found. And not detonated bombs. It would be insanely expensive to build the airport, build the infrastructure and remove all possible hazards. Costing well over £150bn.

[@another_day4783]

still better than this, by the time its build heathrow will need a another runway

[@RendererEP]

trust me i live in upminster the countryside just outside of upminster is an important link to essex and there are some nice little hamlets and villages such as corbets tey and bulphan but also the towns of aveley and ockendon are right in the middle of those fields so a new airport wouldnt work there plus southend and stanatead arent far and to be honest on a good day nor is gatwick so it would be pretty pointless building an airport to the east

[@DarthJedi2005remixes]

It is a shame, but as you said in the video it's like any other English village. There are thousands more like it, so one less won't be a massive loss. Unfortunately sometimes progress does mean unpopular decisions have to be made.

[@jacon454]

That's easy to say if you're not the victim

[@HenryRodgers-cat-lover-]

You play it up with the medieval buildings and pub, yet most of that stuff won't even be demolished. A large part of the space for the runway is that open field you showed at the end. The expansion has to happen at Heathrow (not Stansted or Gatwick) because a huge amount of visitors to the airport are connecting, and they can't connect between Heathrow and an alternate london airport without even more homes being destroyed for a connecting railway that most still wouldn't use. Every major infrastructure expansion has to sacrifice the few for the needs of the many, every technological advance has from automation and robots replacing human workers to new railways, airports and highways replacing houses.

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

Henry Rodgers that’s the point of expanding Gatwick, it’s in the middle of no where! Gatwick has far more trains to other parts of the uk than Heathrow does, the Gatwick express takes under thirty minutes which isnt I admit that but sorry Heathrow is an obese child that needs to be stopped, sorry but I don’t care about the many selfish travellers I care about the few who will lose their homes and community, fuck this government and the MPs who voted for something which will destroy the environment even more

[@Aviation-fi3sv]

Gatwick airport was about to build a new runway but Heathrow took the requestment and made the airport bigger

[@casualonion]

That's unfortunate, seems like a nice place

[@Heismann]

Luton, Gatwick and Stansted should be upgraded, and then make a express railway between them

[@EvanEscher]

They could really just use the existing northern parking lots and Bath Road for the 3rd runway. The pavement is already there.

[@Topboy53]

I mean the Bath Road/Colnbrook Bypass will have to be rerouted via Stanwell

[@anjemo6650]

I HATE LIVING BESIDE AN AIRPORT. ITS SOOOO LOUD> I CANT SLEEP!!

[@airplaneplustrainguy8143]

Meanwhile in Manila, Our solution is to just upgrades the 2nd Biggest Airport in the Greater Manila Area which is Clark International Airport and keep Manila Ninoy Aquino International Airport just as same as today and New Railway line will built.There is also a plan to built a Boris Island Style airport either in the Laguna De Lake or the Manila Bay in Provinces.I think London must do it.

[@kuyaleinad4195]

NAIA is pretty much inadequate for Manila as a whole. Let alone for the country D: I think we’ll need that ‘Boris island’ plan as NAIA is just not possible to expand anymore :/ Since the Philippines is pretty much only a Terminal destination and not a hub (We just can’t compete with Chinese and Japanese Hub airports), expanding Clark Airport is actually a pretty good decision as a lot of Philippine Air traffic is due to OFW’s which will be pleased to land in an Airport that has better road connections than NAIA could even have. The new Airport would probably need to be by the sea and it could also benefit by being an International Sea port as well as the Port of Manila is also running at maximum capacity!

[@truelymadmatt]

Billions added to the London economy because of it. I think its fine relocating a few hundred people so that the rest of us can benefit. It's for the greater good

[@PianoKwanMan]

The greater good

[@conorwilson1382]

Reminded me of the scene from hot fuzz : " THE GREATER GOOD .... " .

[@neatodd]

Ever heard of the expression "there's more to life than money"? Ever heard of something called "global warming"?

[@neatodd]

There are six international airports within 50 miles of London. Heathrow has increased passenger numbers grew by 3.9% to 37.1 million just by switching to larger aircraft and 70% of passengers is leisure traffic. Tell me again how we will be "left behind"?

[@somethingclever1128]

idk, there's more than money in life. still, the expansion is necessary, so they better compensate the villagers heftily. 25% simply isn't enough, because we live in a country where freedom generally trumps economic good sense (See : Brexit)

[@jontysherson]

where i live the airport need 2 runway but we are lucky there no buildings bye the airport

[@cityuser]

I would love to have a Heathrow runway on my doorstep. Anyone else?

[@scj6693]

cityuser what happens if, just like at Heathrow a decade ago, a plane’s engines inexplicably turn off right before landing and the plane stalls and barely makes the runway, slamming into houses and businesses?

[@scj6693]

Not to mention the noise of a plane landing at your house every 2 minutes.

[@cityuser]

Seriously? You can say everything is dangerous by saying "what if". What if a car crashed into your house? What if your neighbour murdered you? It's happened before.

[@cityuser]

And the noise? Lol.

[@scj6693]

cityuser ....and it can easily happen again. In Chicago Midway, 12 years ago, December. A plane lands, slides off the runway and slams into a car on the road, killing people on the ground. I’m simply saying that living adjacent to a runway isn’t exactly the best thing in the world. It’s not safe IMO. You asked for opinions and i gave you mine.

[@youtube-kanal2606]

1:08 Hea Heathrow

[@tdcattech]

It's never ideal and I would be upset if someone ripped through this area of Bristol, but the same has happened many times before (a friend of mine had his house and farm destroyed for the M6 Toll) and simply has to happen again or we will stand still. Someone will always suffer but people get over things like this. We're good like that.

[@saurabhmoitra]

Dear channel owners - where is Geoff?

[@paulsengupta971]

Do a search for "All the stations".

[@rjc0234]

HAHA! they should move the runway a bit more north, and build the terminal around the village. Imagine Arriving in the UK for the first time, stepping out of your gate into the arrivals area, and right in the middle of it is a genuine picture-perfect little british village! Still love the idea of Boris island. who cares how much it costs,think of all the jobs (and money) for the people!

[@paulsengupta971]

Yep, straight into the pub for lunch! :-)

[@joesos]

The problem though is that they would probably need a new terminal for the new runway's capacity so really the whole village would be demolished

[@Milnoc]

I doubt the inhabitants will get anything close to a satisfactory amount for their homes. What is this "market value" they speak of? The homes will be torn down! They're already worthless! And what about the renters? Do they get any compensation at all for the "inconvenience" of losing their homes and having to move?

[@Crownedbycee]

I live in harmondsworth/sipson village and I’m used to the noise 😂

[@george.ogilvie]

WE CANT DESTROY THE VILLAGE BECAUSE IT HAS OLD BUILDINGS! Oh wait, those old buildings won’t actually be demolished... and even if they would, there are hundreds more villages with old buildings in the UK. So what’s stopping the expansion? A few old people that can’t be bothered to move to a one of the millions more terrace houses that look exactly the same.

[@jacon454]

It's easy for you to say, it's not your home being destroyed

[@shabbirnaqvi1344]

The expansion is necessary. The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[@neatodd]

The 'needs of the many' is to have breathable air and planet that's not warming, not a cheap holiday in Alicante you clueless idiot

[@shabbirnaqvi1344]

neatodd air travel is the most enviromentaly sustainable ways to travel. A boeing 787-8 has a (US) mpg per passenger of 94, much better than car travel.

[@TobyGribben]

The Komodo Dragon *wants of the many

[@neatodd]

So? from wikipedia: "A December 2015 report finds that aircraft could generate 43 Gt of carbon pollution through to 2050, consuming almost 5% of the remaining global climate budget. Without regulation, global aviation emissions may triple by mid-century and could emit more than 3 Gt of carbon annually under a high-growth, business-as-usual scenario. Efforts to bring aviation emissions under an effective global accord have so far largely failed, despite there being a number of technological and operational improvements on offer"

[@somethingclever1128]

You might well be right, but I want you to say that same line when someone forces you out of your home to build a runway on top of it.

[@benalkan8559]

Some sacrifices have to be made

[@jacon454]

That's easy to say if you're not the victim of it

[@QuarioQuario54321]

Well we could replace heathrow with an airport 1000 miles away

[@scythal]

QuarioQuario54321 London, the financial hub of all the UK would suffer if the airport was too damn far away.

[@Topboy53]

We could do nothing

[@Quasihamster]

A pub right at the edge of an airport? Wendover Productions will pay 10 times the market value for ANY house in this village.

[@jackattack7940]

Heathrow is one of the largest airports in the world. Is there really any need for an extra runway? I mean Gatwick could use for an extra runway more than what Heathrow needs.

[@rebekahsegun8319]

That's precisely the REASON Heathrow needs a new runway. It's operating at near full capacity. Other major airports have at least 4-5 runways.

[@Nitroblast]

The Shanghai Maglev takes 8 minutes to go 30km, so it would take about 10 minutes for a Maglev service in the UK to go from Heathrow to Gatwick (38km)... Why isn't that being considered so that a fourth runway isn't required?

[@KS-tz9sg]

Making sacrifices for the whole nation is necessary, please don't become one of those mobs in Narita Japan. Also, it's not like they will be homeless, the government should pay for at least another house of equivalent value and along with some compensation. Before someone start smashing me with the global warming and environmental refugee argument, I'd just like to point out the nearby M25 produces way more CO2 and other toxins than Jets, the whole pollution argument is basically nonsense. Also the run way is there to mostly reduce delays and not for adding more flights, so same amount of CO2 as before And yes, I live near Gatwick, if the government ask me to move house to expand Gatwick then I will be happy to do so, because I know it will benefit the country and in the end benefit me.

[@paulsengupta971]

It would probably reduce pollution as it would 1) reduce aircraft holding time in the air, and 2) reduce aircraft holding time on the ground waiting to take off. It would reduce both local air pollution and CO2 emissions.

[@StevenJam]

Personally I feel like the airport expansion should happen. The airport is a global necessity and a few small houses do not matter on a global scale.

[@mittfh]

"A few small houses" Heathrow themselves claim 750 homes will have to be compulsorily purchased, while they're also extending compensation to another 3,750 homes close to the new boundary - so that's up to 4,500 families entering the property market simultaneously. I very much doubt there'll be any new property developments, so they'll have to compete in the existing property market - so causing a temporary spike in house prices. Even so, the residents will probably have to move far and wide.

[@StevenJam]

750 homes is nothing compared to the amount of people who will be using the runway.

[@mittfh]

By that argument, you could justify demolishing not just 4,500 homes, but 45,000 or even 450,000...

[@StevenJam]

If the global community gets more use out of it than the amount that were originally there that would be a sacrifice worth making.

[@common_c3nts]

After Brexit it wont be needed anymore. Heathrow will no longer be a major hub when they leave the EU.

[@Ethan-ik1nm]

Although Heathrow needs expansion, im thinking of pollution more than the houses that will be destroyed. Airports already make me feel sick because I just hate thinking of all the toxins and pollution we are pumping into our atmosphere.

[@paulsengupta971]

They make me happy because...well....aeroplanes. :-)

[@scythal]

Well, we have no choice until a perfect, faster, safer, and less polluted alternative to aeroplanes are found.

[@rebekahsegun8319]

Then 86 the entire M25. That motorway produces more CO2 than Heathrow could ever match.

[@michaelkemp4515]

Why not use the disused runways instead e.g. Stanton Suffolk

[@jamesbrown-gg7dd]

why would you WANT to live this close to one of the worlds greatest airports?

[@gnnascarfan2410]

Now with the thing that has affected life for two years as of 2022, that 3rd runway is getting delayed.

[@PEPcessna]

build the 3rd runway its needed

[@IboCamIbo]

Needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few.

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

Cam Not Cam it in this case it doesn’t, i Dont see why a village has to be demolished partially because the many don’t give a shit about the environment

[@KasabianFan44]

I still think London would be better off if Gatwick was expanded instead.

[@aidengillag]

KasabianFan44 would you care to explain why? Theres winners and loosers in either airports future expansion. I just wonder why you think London would be better off with expansion at LGW instead.

[@KasabianFan44]

Aiden Gill The main reason is that because Gatwick is already much better served by public transport than Heathrow. I fear that if Heathrow were to be expanded, the current rail infrastructure wouldn't cope with the extra passengers, whereas with Gatwick this wouldn't be as much of a problem.

[@BBC.Radio1]

Let's see here... Heathrow can be accessed via bus, motorway, Heathrow Connect, Heathrow Express (dedicated tracks) and the Underground, whilst Gatwick is only served by bus, motorway, and the Gatwick Express (tracks shared with other services). I highly doubt your claim that "Gatwick is already much better served by public transport than Heathrow".

[@KasabianFan44]

There are MANY more train services to Gatwick than just the Gatwick Express. There are a total of 17 fast or semi-fast trains every hour between Gatwick and London, compared to only 6 (soon 8) between Heathrow and London (Heathrow does also have the Tube but it takes over twice as long to get to central London). On top of that, Gatwick has direct train connections with: Brighton, Worthing, Chichester, Portsmouth, Southampton, Eastbourne, Hastings, Horsham, Guildford, Reading, St Albans, Luton (including the Airport) and Bedford, and it will soon also have services to Stevenage, Cambridge and Peterborough. Heathrow on the other hand, only connects directly to London and (soon) Brentwood. So which one has a better train service?

[@Ciaran100]

Gatwick!!!!!!!!!!11

[@ItsRobbyYT]

Get read of it build the 3rd runway

[@320ifq]

Are you sure Sipson is going to stay, I think the bulldozers will be moving in there too.

[@100SteveB]

I think everyone is missing the real point. Aircraft are right up there when it comes to the amount of pollution being chucked into the atmosphere, everyone should be looking at ways of reducing the amount of flights being made - not adding capacity to encourage even more. just have a look at one of the live data websites that shows the amount of planes in the air over Europe - all guzzling tons of fuel whilst en route. Of course not many people think about the pollution a plane produces, after all, you only ever smell it if your near the airport, after all, they dump it all 35.000 feet up, nothing to worry about.

[@TheOwenMajor]

"everyone should be looking at ways of reducing the amount of flights being made" yeah, thats not going to happen.

[@100SteveB]

That_llama_in_a_tuxedo, if you look into it, planes are a very big problem when it comes to pollution, like so many you seem to think otherwise. www.theguardian.com/environment/blog/2010/sep/09/carbon-emissions-planes-shipping - en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Environmental_impact_of_aviation. Electric and Hybrids are becoming more and more popular in cars, can't say i have seen any 747 sized electric aircraft being tested anywhere - or even a small 737 sized aircraft come to think of it, the technology is just not there yet. So aviation is not only a massive source of pollution today, but unlike cars, there is no solution on it's way to solve the issue.

[@Gorantaylis]

You've hit the nail on the head there.

[@TheOwenMajor]

The energy density of batteries will never become high enough to support viable aircraft. It has been decades since the last breakthrough of batteries, with no promising developments.

[@owenc6961]

There are a lot of innovations coming into planes to make them more eco friendly and eventually carbon numeral. What's more planes are already very fuel efficient.

[@rossssd4969]

They could provide a subsidy for new housing for the current residents, like they did with the Grenfell Tower victims

[@finsanimations3778]

I would rather have a runway underground to speed up then go up out on a ramp, if it's a landing runway have on a bridge then make it go down, BOOM PROBLEM SOLVED

[@hcguyz]

"A landing and takeoff here happen every few minutes." Doesn't sound very busy for one of the world's busiest airport.

[@nasir1761]

I did my geogrpahy investigation here!!! Déjà vu!

[@cloroxbleach175]

Say no to Heathrow Terminal Cancer

[@naijiktom]

What with this and HS2 it must be a bloody big magic money tree.

[@aidengillag]

Lunar Cow The Heathrow third runway will be privately funded... However, any renewed infrastructure including roads around the airport - such as any impact on the M25 will be publicly spent money.

[@VW_Fan]

HS2 is needed!

[@BeAFreePerson]

Big magic tree for London and Northern Ireland. No money for anywhere else.

[@finsanimations3778]

London X the whole of England yes

[@Michael-jv1mq]

It's interesting to see that the Britons have the same problems with NIMBYS.

[@cowscrazy]

Time to build another airport all together. Today its one runway but that will only be more in time.

[@HomebaseLHR]

cowscrazy who's gonna fund a whole new airport? And where to put it?

[@cowscrazy]

If the airport is really that busy then someone should be making money.. and if not. Well thats a totally different conversation all together. Also airports are generally put outside the city. You still might take down some homes or business or even a town .. but your only delaying the problem with a single runway

[@scythal]

cowscrazy Here's one problem - London is surrounded by a so-called greenbelt which prevents them from expanding into the countryside

[@Intrepidity]

It's sad, but you can't stop progress because of a few complaining nimby's.

[@JayJay-nc7pr]

Bart Guliker it’s not progress, not in a age where we’re trying to cut back on pollution and I’m sorry but those so called nimbys are going to lose their homes you complete and utter waste of space, let’s demolish your home for a crappy run way and see how you like it

[@nparker1308]

This channel has seriously deteriorated over the past 3 months!!! What has happened to the 'London's least used stations' series? I have heard nothing since April about that series!!! Has that been cancelled?

[@OlidogMC]

Nathan Parker Geoff Marshall has been busy with the 'All the Stations' project. He will be done soon...

[@airplaneplustrainguy8143]

OlidogMC as of this days (September 13 2017) they are now done in the all the Station

[@tpmbe]

Don't go ahead please, Heathrow is not the place, put this more in mid country to expand into UK , not in London, that would be a disaster

[@connoryoung1993]

There are more runways at O'Hare International than at all six London airports combined. Why not expand both Heathrow and Gatwick? After all competition will keep prices down for consumers.

[@connoryoung1993]

mPky1 My point was that O'Hare serves Chicago (London has three times the population) and is a hub for both United and American, huge airlines. If that airport needs eight runways, then its logical to think that Heathrow and Gatwick are currently restricted. How do airports not benefit people? They create thousands of jobs directly, they pay huge sums in taxes to local and national government which is spent on services for the UK population. Tourists and business visitors spend money from their countries in our restaurants, hotels, shops, trains, taxis... keeping the average UK citizen employed. They can be conduits to attract investment in our country and they keep many people's pension pots afloat. The average citizen may not be directly connected to an airport, but they certainly benefit from them.

[@connoryoung1993]

mPky1 okay. More and more people are flying, and low oil prices plus fuel efficient aircraft like the 787, 737MAX and A350 are making more long and thin routes viable. But if runway expansion at London airports is not the answer like you suggest, I'm interested to hear what you think the way forward is.

[@paulsengupta971]

"In fact the airport only exists because the british tax payer paid for everythign to make it possible and keep it running." - but then gets it back many many times over. Though actually Heathrow is privately owned, so it's private money that's paying for it. And raises a huge amount of revenue for the country. Of course the money is for people like you or me - I don't know about you but I work in a global company, and being able to move people and goods around the world is essential to our survival, it's what keeps me in a job.

[@paulsengupta971]

Ok, let me turn this around. Can you show that the movement of goods and people internationally hasn't given any money to the British people? The big reason why Europe became rich was through trade and colonisation around the world, moving people and goods back and forth. It's the reason we have running water, electricity, roads and railways. Continued movement of people and goods is what keeps us relatively well off. I think *your* answer is far too simple. Creating a decent infrastructure has brought in far more than paid out. You need to look at the big picture. If you're looking at tax, you have to look at the tax paid by business/industry as a whole, taking in all businesses which benefits from people and goods moved in or out of the country.