There's a constant row over a proposed third runway at Heathrow airport, and more recently over a new high-speed railway that is planned to join London to Leeds, Birmingham and Manchester. Many of the objections to both boil down to noise and property values.
Noise objections to an airport expansion in a densely populated area are entirely justified. Noise objections to an electric railway with no level crossings in mostly rural areas are somewhat less so - and historically, railways tend to *improve* property values.
But I came across an intriguing statistic recently - the entire new railway, hundreds of route-miles long, will take up less total land area than Heathrow does today, without the third runway. That's counting everything inside their respective boundary fences. Makes you think, no?
Noise objections to an airport expansion in a densely populated area are entirely justified. Noise objections to an electric railway with no level crossings in mostly rural areas are somewhat less so - and historically, railways tend to *improve* property values.
But I came across an intriguing statistic recently - the entire new railway, hundreds of route-miles long, will take up less total land area than Heathrow does today, without the third runway. That's counting everything inside their respective boundary fences. Makes you think, no?
Comment