Cardelia

peckman Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Dont fly then . If you want to and have the luxury > to choose your type your aircraft you have too > much money or time Really? For most people it would just mean picking Easyjet (or BA) rather than Ryanair, assuming both fly to the required destination.

goldilocks Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Pavement parking like the picture attached is > never ok - it blocks accessibility for many, its > illegal, I'm not aware of any scenario where it > would be allowed and it damages the pavements > costing us more in council services. It's very rare but some areas of Southwark do allow parking on the pavement, for example Peak Hill in Sydenham. But those are officially marked bays rather than some lazy sod just leaving their van wherever they feel like.

Alexthecamel Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Are you sure that?s safe advice James? If the kerb > is dropped the owner isn?t exempt from the > requirement to not park across it. There is no specific law forbidding anyone from parking over a dropped kerb. The actual offence under which this is dealt with is the catch-all "causing an obstruction" (or words to that effect). This is obvious when you think about parking across a dropped kerb which is meant to aid pedestrians crossing roads, but is less clear cut in other situations. For example, where someone has walled over a drive but the dropped kerb is still there, it's not illegal to park over it because you can't obstruct access to a wall. Or if you park across your own driveway, who exactly are you obstructing? In practice Southwark won't enforce parking across driveways unless the owner makes a complaint. Sally Eva's advice is good, but please mention to the call centre operator that you want the vehicle removed rather than just ticketed.

Davis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Please can you cite a reference that supports your > claim that radioactive decay violates Newton's > first law. From my research, and I am not a > specialist in this field by any account, nuclear > decay does not contradict what is inferred from > Newton's first law but rather his second law which > relates to conservation of energy. Imagine an atom of uranium which is placed in a perfect vacuum with no forces acting on the atom. You give the atom some momentum (for example, velocity of 1 kilometre per year) in a certain direction and leave it alone. Now, if Newton's first law holds true, you could come back in 1 year and the uranium atom will be 1 kilometre away from the original point, still moving in the same direction. You could come back in 1000 years and the uranium atom would be 1000 kilometres from the original point, still moving in the same direction. You could come back in 1 billion years and the uranium atom would be 1 billion kilometres from the original point, still moving in the same direction. And so forth. Except that's not what will happen. At some point, the uranium atom will undergo a spontaneous decay process. It will emit an alpha particle and some gamma radiation. It will change itself into a thorium atom with lower energy, lower mass and a different velocity. So if you come back in 1 billion years, your uranium atom is no longer 1 billion km from the original starting point heading in the same direction. It's somewhere else, heading in a different direction at a different velocity. In fact, you don't even have a uranium atom at all. No force has caused the decay process within the atom, but a change has occurred. So you've broken Newton's first law. > Do you agree that all which can be observed and > measured in the universe is finite (meaning it has > not always existed and at a certain point it came > into existence)? If we assume that the universe is a closed system then no, I don't agree because the first law of thermodynamics comes into play. Energy cannot be created or destroyed. Everything which can be observed and measured has always existed in one one form or another.

Davis Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > According to the big bang theory elements and > extreme temperatures appeared and started moving > and this caused reactions which lead to the > universe. Besides other things this contradicts > Newton's first law. How did these elements appear > and then start moving without an external force ( > an agent of change)? To believe this is to deny > what is observable. Moreover, if you believe this > you must also, by logic, believe that it is > possible for a meal to appear on your table > without anything causing it. Newton's laws are good for explaining most of the observable world around us, but they're no good for explaining something like the origin of the universe. Once you start looking at the behaviour of atoms (and smaller particles), especially under extreme conditions, you need to rely on quantum mechanics, not classical mechanics. Modern physics left Newton's ideas behind over 100 years ago. For example, radioactive decay violates Newton's first law, yet we can see it and measure it. We even use it to power our homes. So I can deny that Newton's first law is true without my world collapsing. And I don't need to resort to a philosophy which is irrelevant to life in order to use electricity generated from nuclear power stations to make a cup of tea.

James, In response to question 1, I think the map in Figure 2 would be much more informative if Melbourne Grove was split into two. The responses showed that the section north of EDG is clearly in favour of a CPZ (hence it should be coloured green) and the section south of EDG is clearly against a CPZ (hence it should be coloured red). This would make it easier to see that the proposed zone is too big. Your suggestion of removing Melbourne Grove (south), Blackwater Street, Bassano Street, Chesterfield Grove and Ashbourne Grove from the proposed CPZ is a good one. None of these roads showed a clear majority in favour of a CPZ, with some clearly against a CPZ, so it seems unfair to impose one on them.

malumbu Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > ULEZ was announced by BJ about four years ago and > there has been plenty about it since on social and > normal media, information campaigns, consultation > etc so surprised how people are waking up to it > now. TfL's checker is date based and can get > things wrong occasionally. TfL have changed the checker. It used to be date based but now it uses the emissions data held by (I think) DVLA. A couple of years ago my car, a 2003 plate petrol, was showing as ULEZ non-compliant because it was too old. I recently checked it again on a whim and it's now showing as ULEZ compliant because the actual exhaust emissions meet the required standards.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Passiflora Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > Just to say Rendel that you did post a very > rude > > reply to the OP on Saturday night which was > > probably read by lots of people on the forum > but > > was then edited the following morning. > > Absolute rubbish. But then in your weird > Passiflora-aggressive way you think anyone's rude > if they disagree with your "let me drive whenever > and wherever I want" outlook. It's much easier to > accuse people of rudeness than produce a > substantive counter-argument, isn't it? If you want to avoid giving off the impression of being rude and offensive, prefacing your posts with statements like "OK, you may find this question offensive..." isn't exactly helping your cause (post 79 of this thread, assuming I can count correctly). I also saw that comment on Saturday, by the way. I don't particularly care if you are confrontational, I know I can be just as bad on topics I feel passionately about (and this is the internet, after all). But the fact that you edited that post the next morning suggests that you know your comment went beyond the line of just disagreeing with someone, and it was genuinely rude.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The point is, if Grove Lane and Dog > Kennel Hill have been suffering "gridlock" due to > the CH closure, as some have claimed, how was I > able to take photographs at the height of rush > hour showing those roads completely empty? > Where's the gridlock? I don't know. In order to answer that we'd need to know what sort of journeys people typically make which require them to use Grove Lane/Champion Park, then backtrack those routes to see whether there was any incident (roadworks, accident etc.) on Monday morning which would have disrupted the traffic flows before drivers reached Grove Lane. That shouldn't be difficult to ascertain from all the research and modelling studies that Southwark Council would have done as part of their assessment of what would likely happen to traffic flows when they closed Champion Hill.* For what it's worth, the traffic this morning on Grove Lane was backed up all the way to the crossroads at the top of DKH (around 8:45). I was on a bus which got held up for about 10 minutes before it could get into the bus lane on Champion Park. Same was true yesterday. There are plenty of recent datapoints from multiple people on here to suggest that this is typical of the morning rush since Champion Hill was closed, and that for whatever reason Monday morning was an anomaly. * Yes, I know, of course Southwark won't have done any of this. But they should have done.

James Barber Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > This link shows several along East Dulwich Grove > and the attached picture shows temporary traffic > lights on East Dulwich Grove - > http://public.londonworks.gov.uk/roadworks/?x=rj1z > lqRGHMYbf929f5Rukg > This does not show that the one-way on Champion > hill is the cause of current queuing as described. Well, James, traffic levels on East Dulwich Grove were pretty similar the week immediately after Champion Hill was closed. There were no roadworks then, so it's fair to say that the closure of Champion Hill has - at the very least - been a contributory factor to the increased traffic levels on EDG. There's no doubt that the current roadworks are making the situation worse, but that doesn't mean they're the only cause of increased traffic levels on EDG. Shall we wait until next week and see what happens when the works are finished? I'd also like to point out that there are no roadworks on Grove Lane/Champion Park, and traffic levels on those two roads are significantly worse than they were prior to the closure of Champion Hill. Would you care to offer an explanation for that?

AylwardS Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I?m not sure what more signage could be erected.. > There are two signs on Dog Kennel Hill advising > there is no access to Denmark Hill. If you?ve been > driving that way for years you probably don?t look > at the signs. There are two high-up, tiny yellow signs with small writing on Dog Kennel Hill. One of which, when I saw it yesterday morning, had been turned at an angle so that it was difficult to see from the road when heading up DKH. There are no signs informing drivers that Champion Hill is a dead end until you're actually on Champion Hill itself. There are certainly no large signs with big writing on DKH telling drivers that there has been a change in access rights. Oh, and whilst I'm thinking about it, a couple of traffic datapoints. Yesterday morning around 8:25 East Dulwich Grove (heading towards Herne Hill) was jammed back as far as the junction with Melbourne. 10 minutes later, Windsor Walk/Grove Lane was jammed all the way back to the top of the hill. This morning around 8:25, EDG was jammed as far as I could see - probably all the way back to the junction with Lordship. Buses going the other way were also being held up because it was difficult to squeeze past the long line of stationary traffic at certain narrow points on the road.

rendelharris Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The closure has happened, it's already > evident that the teething problems, which were > inevitable until drivers decided on alternatives > (or, heaven forfend, realised that they could use > alternative modes of transport), are being sorted > out and traffic levels are reverting to the status > quo ante. Or, it could be that traffic levels are much lighter due to it being half term and the chaos will resume on Monday morning. Let's wait and see.

PeterW Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > As to the current disruption, I can see it must be > frustrating, though I'd say first that it's tricky > to judge a six-month trial four days into it. But > more generally I'd reiterate my point: if vehement > protest over any traffic-reducing scheme causes > them to be abandoned then nothing gets done. And > the status quo is no good. Congestion will get > worse and worse anyway. It's time to argue for > wider action. Every time I go down Melbourne Grove > I think it's absurd it's not blocked to motor > traffic at one end. It's hugely unfair on > residents. Same for lots of other residential > streets. But - and this is the key thing ? if > councils have to reverse what you might call the > easier changes (TfL are behind the CH scheme due > to the quietway, so it has official backing), then > *nothing* will get done. And if we're serious > about making steets more pleasant, protecting kids > from pollution, all of that, then it needs more > radical action, not doing nothing. I think the point is that this isn't a traffic *reducing* scheme, unless you happen to live on Champion Hill. For everyone else, it's a traffic *increasing* scheme, and this problem had been foreseen prior to the scheme being introduced. A lot of people are being negatively affected by the traffic which has been displaced from Champion Hill. For example, buses which travel down Grove Lane towards Denmark Hill station are suffering major delays due to traffic backing up from the Denmark Hill/Windsor Walk junction. East Dulwich Grove is also full of displaced traffic and the 37/42 buses are even slower than usual. Melbourne Grove was jammed this morning because cars couldn't get onto EDG and traffic coming the other way couldn't get past due to the narrow road. Even cyclists were being forced to get off their bike and walk around the obstructions via the pavement, that's how little room there was. Whilst I agree with you that the status quo is no good, there's no point in making changes if it's going to make the overall situation worse. It's interesting that you think TfL are backing the closure. If it's true, then I wonder how they can justify the delays caused to the 40/176/185/484 and 37/42 services which are a direct result of traffic being displaced from Champion Hill. I'd also be interested to see how buses like the 68, which head up Denmark Hill from King's, have been affected. On a separate note, there are plenty of things which could be done to improve air quality which don't involve drastic action like closing roads. Firstly, if TfL want to encourage people to cycle more, then why haven't they expanded the cycle hire network throughout Southwark? The nearest docking station to us is in Brixton and the only reason that's there is because Lambeth council stumped up some of the money to get the cycle hire scheme extended out that far. It would be nice to think Southwark could do something similar for ED but obviously they'd rather waste our money on yellow paint and CPZ consultations. Still, that doesn't mean TfL can't do it out of their own funds, if that was truly a priority for them. Public transport in general in this area is poor. TfL recently cut the frequency of the 176 service which resulted in more overcrowding during rush hour. It would be nice to have those buses back. And whilst I'm thinking about it, how about improving the frequency of east-west bus routes like the 37 and P4? If there was a better bus service for people who want to travel around London, rather than to/from zone 1, that could result in a decrease in traffic levels on roads like Champion Hill. Even if the above is all too costly, there are still things that can be done to encourage people to pollute less. For example, incentives for drivers to buy electric rather than petrol/diesel cars. There are hardly any on-street charging points in Southwark which is a major hindrance for people who want to go electric. If we had more charging points we could also have more electric zipcars instead of the petrol/diesel ones we mostly have now. Sure it won't do much for congestion, but it would at least help with the pollution which is better than doing nothing. Or, doing something which makes things worse.

Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Aside from the myriad of reasons why people may > need to use their car, we also suffer our cars > being scratched and dented as people try, and > fail, to pass on a road narrowed by cars parked on > each side, there is constant congestion and > beeping as cars try to pass, the air quality > suffers as cars try to pass, try crossing a road > with a buggy where there?s no gaps between the > cars, try crossing a road with small children > where you?re all emerging from behind parked cars > because there?s no option. The effect of parking > stress goes beyond whether you can use your car or > not. > > Edited to add: also if you need deliveries they > can?t park, or you have friends or relatives > coming to stay they can?t park anywhere near your > home, tradespeople have to park ages away, or try > to unload tools whilst parked in the middle of the > road and then go and park ages away and walk back. As I've previously mentioned, I walk down Melbourne Grove every day to get to ED station. On the bit north of EDG, apart from all the dropped kerbs creating natural gaps for pedestrians to cross, there is also a 10 metre stretch of road with a single yellow line. You can't park here, but there are no loading restrictions hence any tradesman (or visitor with small children...) can load/unload before reparking elsewhere. One other thing that I've noticed is how many of the cars don't move very often. If I wander down to ED station on a weekend I still see many of the same cars that I see on weekdays, which implies they belong to residents and not commuters. By the way, you shouldn't take Southwark's promises of 40% more parking at face value. Do your own research and decide whether their claims are realistic or not. My estimate is that if the CPZ proposals come in, you'll lose over 40 metres of current freely available parking on Melbourne (north side) due to the increased double yellow lines. That's room for 8 cars. There are also a couple of dropped kerbs on Melbourne which aren't marked on the CPZ plan, so that would be the equivalent of another two parking spots gone due to the double yellows. 10 spaces. That's a lot to lose. The question you need to ask yourself is whether the loss of 10 parking spaces (plus the additional ?125 per year per permit) is a good trade-off for getting rid of commuters.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I know people doubt the 40% figure, but go to any > area pre and post CPZ and you'll find this to be > the case. Parking massively increases compared to > the previous situation. Yet despite regular > repeated evidence to support this, people still > doubt this. A shame. In areas which are blighted by commuters, you may well see a 40% increase in available parking spaces once a CPZ is introduced. But as we've pointed out numerous times, there simply isn't the same parking problem in the LL consultation area that you were experiencing in the toastrack. In the main, we don't have commuters parking on our roads to use ED station. So where are the 40% additional spaces going to come from if there are no commuters to get rid of? Take Hansler Road as an example. I walk down it pretty much every day and it's always busy, but not full. A quick estimate on google maps suggests that it's about 150 metres long, meaning a theoretical 300 metres of kerb space for parking. Once you account for the existing double yellow lines, dropped kerbs and disabled bays, there's about 240 metres of freely available parking on Hansler. Allowing 5 metres per space, there is room for 48 cars. Due to the existing road layout (awkward dropped kerb locations etc.) I estimate the proposed Southwark CPZ scheme will remove 35 metres of parking, which is about 15% of the currently available space. Or room for 7 cars. Southwark are not even proposing to introduce any pay-only bays, or parklets, or cycle hangers etc. on Hansler, just the mere process of marking out CPZ bays using their stated criteria will result in a 15% reduction in space because of the additional double yellow lines that will be needed. Given this 15% reduction in space, can anyone tell me how many commuters will need to be displaced from Hansler in order to see a 40% increase in parking? Is there any evidence at all to suggest that this correlates to the current number of commuters who park on Hansler?

The ground is too small to be Villa Park. Even back in the 1930s that was an enormous place. It looks like a lower league ground to me, or possibly one of the giant old non-league grounds. Based on location (i.e. the Wednesbury advert) my best guess would be Walsall. Interestingly, according to http://www.historicalkits.co.uk/Walsall/Walsall.htm, they played in claret and blue in 1938 so it could well be them as the home team. I've no idea about the team in stripes though.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Goodness me there is a lot of hyperbole on display > about CPZ. Its an extremely straightforward > process, which has minimal impact on people beyond > asking for a small payment to park their car in > the local area. Buying permits is easy and > straightforward for visitors, and isn't difficult > to do. > > I think a lot of people here are scaremongering > and pushing a narrative that those of us who are > lucky enough to live in a Southwark run CPZ don't > recognise. The situation most of us find ourselves in now is that we have to pay ?0 to park our car. We have to pay ?0 to enable visitors, tradesmen etc. to park their cars. We have to spend 0 hours, 0 minutes and 0 seconds on applying for/renewing a parking permit, or buying visitor permits. Occasionally we may have to drive around for a minute or two if there are no spaces on our road. But, with the possible exception of a few roads up by the station, there simply isn't the same parking pressure in the LL consultation area that you had on the toastrack. So the arguments you used aren't relevant to most of us.

exdulwicher Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I didn't say I did it, I posted several reasons as > to WHY people jump lights (and actually it applies > to pedestrians nipping across on the red man, > cyclists RLJing and drivers RLJing. One major flaw in your argument is that there are no jaywalking laws in this country. Pedestrians are not legally bound to obey red lights. The Highway Code advises pedestrians to wait at red lights, but this is advice and not a legal requirement. Cyclists, on the other hand, are legally bound to obey red lights, as are motor vehicles like cars and buses. So there's no point trying to use pedestrian behaviour to excuse the lawbreaking of wheeled vehicles, because the same laws don't apply.

JoeLeg Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > keano77 Wrote: > -------------------------------------------------- > ----- > > I?ve never looked into it but I don?t > understand > > why there would be shortages of medicines. > > > > Do the EU gangsters control the supply, on some > > country-lines basis? Why can?t we buy them from > > elsewhere eg the US? The yanks pop pills until > > they?re coming out of their ears so should have > > plenty. > > I'm not entirely sure why this should be either - > I can't see anyone being a jobsworth over > life-saving medicines when it comes down to it. > That said the pharmaceutical companies seem to > think this is a thing, and the govt has slapped > them all with NDA's, which says to me there's an > issue somewhere. It's because we don't manufacture many drugs in this country anymore. It's all been outsourced overseas, which means that we currently import medicines like insulin and salbutamol. If we crash out with no deal these sorts of drugs join the long list of "important stuff we get from other countries" which will need new trade agreements to be in place before we can have more.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It also shows diagrams of how there could be > parallel flight paths over us once there is > another runway and two more holding areas over > other parts of London with the flight of off them > too. Many more London residents with additional > noise misery if the third runway is built. > Our mayor's in favour of it, so probably it > will!? > > Cheers. Sorry, but it doesn't show this at all. The consultation shows the current Heathrow holding stacks which won't change significantly even if a third runway is built. Two are north of the Thames, one is south east (Orpington) and one is south (Reigate). These will never affect ED because we are the point of final alignment for the current approaches, so we need clear airspace hence we can't have holding stacks above us. Flightpaths are mandated to be a certain width, generally 10 nautical miles. Although the final approach paths to Heathrow are obviously not 10 nautical miles apart, we don't currently have one plane on each flight path running next to each other so there is still suitable separation. If concurrent landings are going to happen at Heathrow, what will change is that one flightpath will move its point of final alignment much closer to the airport. If the northern approach changes, ED doesn't see any difference to current operations because the southern alignment point will still be over ED. However, if the southern approach changes, the point of final alignment will move from ED to Barnes/Chiswick. This means that all the planes will need to fly over Clapham, Mitcham etc. in order to reach that alignment point and ED will get respite from noise.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > It seems to me that a CPZ is > only controversial in ED. Everywhere else in > London at this radius from the centre has one. > Every city in the country has them. Come to think > of it, every city in the world I've ever visited > does and their existence is unremarkable. This is > how sensible cities (and especially ones that were > built for the era of the horse and cart) manage > traffic. Well, not every area in London at this radius has a CPZ. Most areas do, admittedly, but there are still pockets of suburbia in zones 2/3 which don't have a CPZ. These areas tend to be awkward to access for commuters and/or are poorly served by public transport (much like ED in fact) but because there isn't parking pressure from commuters the residents have strongly resisted the drive for a CPZ. You're right that pretty much every city in this country has a CPZ of some kind. But I can't think of a city which has blanket CPZ coverage; even cities like Bath, where parking pressures are enormous, have pockets of free parking close to the city centre. Typically these areas are difficult to access by visitors/commuters which is why the residents don't see the need for a CPZ.

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > One or two roads, I have no problem with. Today at > 11am Crawthew, Frogley, Spurling, Worlingham, > Lacon, Nutfield, Archdale, Ashbourne, Matham and > North Cross were all 100% full. I'm delighted to > hear that there are parking paradises elsewhere in > ED but where we are the situation is utterly > dysfunctional. A CPZ is nothing short of a > necessity and you will hear yelps of joy from our > entire street when they start painting the lines. > I'll be the one handing them cups of tea and > biscuits. If the roads are full at 11am but not full during rush hour, doesn't that indicate that the people parking on your road are likely visitors to LL and not commuters? It's debatable whether or not we should be discouraging this kind of traffic if we want to keep LL healthy. And besides, there are no guarantees that a CPZ will solve your problem unless it's an all-day CPZ, and there's no way Southwark will do that because of the proximity to LL. Galileo Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > The number of times my sister-in-law has driven > over for the weekend from Potters Bar only to have > to park streets away and lug the kids and all the > related paraphernalia they come with for ages > along with having two small kids with her who keep > diving for the road and running off, it?s really > frustrating. Then come 7pm/8pm the road clears out > when the commuters go home. I have great sympathies with your sister-in-law's need to marshal small children over long distances, but the idea that a CPZ will solve this problem is not realistic. Southwark will not implement a CPZ on weekends because it would kill traffic to LL. Yes it might deter commuter parking during the week but that's not going to help your weekend visitor issue. People who are pro- and anti-CPZ all agree that a CPZ is designed to stop commuters. It is not meant to stop people visiting a high street to spend money in the shops and restaurants. Unless you can be *sure* that your parking problems are caused by commuters and not by visitors, a CPZ will not help to solve the parking problem. And it may bring a whole raft of unintended consequences further down the line.

jimlad48 Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > . The idea that restaurants will close is > nonsensical. CPZ usually close by 6.30pm, hardly > likely to defer business. The CPZ deters > commuters, not locals. Exactly. For most of the area in this consultation there is no problem with commuter parking. So why do we need a CPZ? Why should we be paying ?125 per year, plus the cost of visitor permits, to solve a problem which doesn't exist?

worldwiser Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > I don't know why it is that so many people assume > that their experience must be everyone's. We also > live on a road off LL and I can state > categorically that there is no way (other than > pure luck) of getting a space between 8.30 and 6 > within 5m walk of our house. The demand for these > spaces is enormous and getting worse. Has been for > the entire time we've lived here. > > I will rejoice when the CPZ arrives. I live close to the cinema and in my experience the busiest time on the side roads off LL is Saturday when the North Cross Road market is on. Any other time there are always parking spaces within 5 minutes walk of my house. For me, a 5 minute radius around my house is roughly the area between Crystal Palace Road and the Melbourne/EDG junction, and anywhere on LL between the Goose Green roundabout and Pellatt Road. I've never, ever seen ED so busy that I can't find a space in that area. This morning I walked down Chesterfield and Melbourne Grove on the way to the station and there were several spaces available at 8:30. Yesterday I left work early, got back to ED around 5 and there were loads of spaces on North Cross Road, Shawbury, Hansler etc. as well as on LL itself. Fellbrigg always has space during the week. Always. Maybe it's different for the side roads up by the roundabout, but a bit further down LL there is simply no need for a CPZ.

i*Rate Wrote: ------------------------------------------------------- > Caredelia, > > > I asked Heathrow the question about the additional > flight path for the third runway and no answer as > I stated earlier. They only sent me details of how > the area around the airport would be effected with > no reference to areas like ours. > What we could have are two parallel flight paths > over us - think about that! > Flights into Heathrow are supposed to increase > from 400+ per day to 700+ per day. We can't have two parallel approaches to Heathrow over ED, there isn't enough airspace to do so. If Heathrow's proposed change to use both runways for takeoff and landing goes through, there will be one approach path over south/south-east London and the other approach will have to come from the north.