Stanstead and City granted expansion: what does it mean for Heathrow?

In the news yesterday:
Stansted and City airports get the expansion go ahead | Greenpeace UK

So, where does that leave us?

It looks like the government (and the councils) are not serious about the green agenda but are rather happy to listen to the aviation lobbies.

Heathrow expansion (the current plan is a third runway between the A4 and M4, requiring to bulldoze 700 homes, effectively razing Sipson) is probably the most controversial: because it's the busiest airport but also the worst location (Westerly winds prevalence means its flight paths send planes droning over no less than 2 MILLIONS of residents.
The most enraging is that both the Government (the Dft) and BAA have been consistently lying and breaking promises over the years.

I think the solution is to do what worked elsewhere: instead of talking about Heathrow not being competitive compared to
other European capitals, conveniently forgeting that only London has
FIVE international airports, the DfT should plan (do they know the meaning of the word though?) ahead and do what many other capitals done by relocating their airport.
Of course, they should also invest in rail: read Lyon-Paris vs. Manchester-London (from Euroblog by Jon Worth)


Read also:

• Stating the obvious: Heathrow expansion will pollute more
• Some Heathrow news...
• Listen to the Heathrow expansion lobbies...

heathrow, heathrowexpansion, LHR, air, airlines, transportation, UK, richmondtransits.blog, environment, pollution