Vote!
Should the third runway at Heathrow go ahead?
- 30% are saying yes
- 70% are saying no
comments from readers
- Nilsey105
04 December 2008 - yes
keep the polution down south i say
- Gerishnakov
04 December 2008 - no
If we follow the logic that 'Britain has to compete' we will just end up building more and more, bigger and bigger airports until the whole country is one giant conurbation of runways.
And we'll all die of global warming.
- Helen Heenan
04 December 2008 - no
If the government is serious about global warming it cannot proceed with this project.
- OzTones
04 December 2008 - no
And even disregarding global warming (which I'm not suggesting for one moment we should), and even if the economic crisis proves to be fundamental and immune to the quick fixes its creators now prescribe as a cure, thereby prolonging the lull in demand for oil, its supplies are still finite and reserves rapidly diminishing (see David Strahan's piece "Pipe Dreams" in yesterday's Guardian). Any new runways will very soon be seen as the large, expensive and glaring asphalt epitaphs to the short-sightedness of the ostriches of corporate capitalist governance that they will inevitably be.
- swatantra nandanwar
05 December 2008 - no
No. End the misery for Londonners now. A 3rd runway means more traffic on the M4 already choc o bloc. Expand the facilities at Gatwick and Stansted instead.
- Anna
05 December 2008 - no
I only recently discovered that there is no tax on air fuel. Why are we not told about this? And they tell us we couldn't possibly subsidise railway travel.
- boru
05 December 2008 - yes
Yes, Go for Go!
- AMC
05 December 2008 - no
No. Nationalise & invest in rail, buses & boats & stop the hidden subsidies profiting private companies.
- Frank Amies
05 December 2008 - no
Not that it will make any difference as the decisions of this nature are made by big business and government but of course there should be no third runway. Villages and landscape will be lost for ever just to satisfy an organisation which is a heavy polluter and doesn't even pay fuel tax.
- stevenpruner01
05 December 2008 - yes
The extra capacity will be needed in the future, and one day new jets will fly with energy that is far, far less polluting with much, much quieter engines. So we need to prepare the infrastructure now. Bring on the jobs: build the runway.
- tommacf77
05 December 2008 - no
Heathrow: wrong place, wrong time, wrong economy!
- William
05 December 2008 - yes
Follow the yellow brick road
- jacameron001
05 December 2008 - no
There's already enough of a housing crisis already! Just where exactly are the new homes of Sipson village residents meant to come from?
- Anton Howes
05 December 2008 - yes
If they can raise the money, then sure. It's a free market, isn't it?
I doubt they'll continue with the plans once they split up BAA... which is hopefully soon! - patricia borlenghi
06 December 2008 - no
Heathrow is big enough already
- Carl Jones
06 December 2008 - yes
The reason why we need a third runway, is really a no-brainer. We have planes flying around in circles. A flight from Paris spends a third of its flight time circling around london. We have planes queueing for half an hour, just to take off...this is such a waste of fuel and just think of the polution.
You can only make a case against it, if you really believe that flying will be banned in the next 10 years.
I also think they could reduce the loss of housing by moving the runway to where the North Perimeter Road is, so you`d have two parallel runways with an open baffle wall in between. The NPR could be tunnelled, we`d need to resite a few hotels and some large hire car sites. This is much better than demolishing two large villages. Sound defences could be built along the south side of the A4.
Just a few thoughts.
- suell
06 December 2008 - no
No - we have to look at longer-term ways to sustain the economy which will also sustain the encironment. It's a no-brainer
Sue Lloyd
- josephCape
06 December 2008 - no
No, the ecological reasons are painfully obvious and the long-term economic interest of all but a few companies funding powerful lobbyists to steal the decision away from the local people affected by the terrific noise, british taxpayers subsidizing an absurd industry and other means of transport which are absolutely more sustainable both argue for NO MORE OBSCENE EXPANSION OF AVIATION
- SimonMorley
06 December 2008 - no
Is that actually a serious question?
- BigRedOne
07 December 2008 - yes
Why shouldn't you Brits screw up your environment just like we Yanks did? Misery loves company. Join us.
- Roland Baker
07 December 2008 - no
By the time it is built, late and at great cost, it will be too financially and environmentally damaging to use.
- Carl Jones
08 December 2008 - yes
Like the House of Commons protest, it looks like MI5 have failed to protect Stansted Airport. Maybe ALL of the Ryanair passegers who had their flights cancelled, should sue every single Stansted protestor for compensation and costs.
As I said before, its a nobrainer, planes are burning huge amounts of fuel waiting to land and take off. By all means, support the "no 3rd runway at LHR, or the 2nd runway at Stansted, but only do it if you REALLY believe that air travel will be severely restricted in the next 10 years.
- mrandyc
09 December 2008 - no
It makes a mockery of our climate policy. We should be restricting air travel by putting a stop to airport expansion and taxing air fuel.
- explodingbadger
10 December 2008 - no
The idea that we should add more air traffic capacity is insane. Unfortunately air travel needs to be reduced to safe levels as soon as possible. The Labour and Conservative parties are in thrall of big business. Its time we got rid of them and elected a party which does whats best for the majority not the few.
