bladesufc1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Yes that's right, according to Look North of Sheffield AKA Look Leeds we now have this distinction. The council has agreed today that development can start on the site at Tinsley to turn it into an industrial estate. Isn't this a disgrace as far as the future of the city goes? but we have got an airport, sheffield / doncaster.. i mean who wants all the pollution that comes with it.. on your door step Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
camping_gaz Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 If we're taking global warming seriously we should be delighted that Sheffield has ceased to have an airport. yes so they can use more fuel driving to the next one that will really help global warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Heyesey Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 yes so they can use more fuel driving to the next one that will really help global warming We can't stop people from being irredeemably, stupidly selfish, but we can at least cause them inconvenience. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 but we have got an airport, sheffield / doncaster.. Adding Sheffield to the name doesn't actually make it a Sheffield airport, it is miles away. In fact, from where I am in Sheffield I can get to East Mids just as quickly and it is only 4 miles further. If they rename East Mids as Nottingham Derby Sheffield Airport then will we have two airports? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris@25 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 I think we should concentrate on creating a frequent, sustainable way (say an electric, double deck, high quality/frequency train service) connecting all the major cities of the north, based on a Liverpool - Liverpool Airport - Warrington - Manchester Airport - Manchester - Leeds - Sheffield - Hull axishttp://www.gmroads.co.uk Such a route would miss Sheffield out though, wouldn't it? Besides, first you say we don't need airports close together, then you reckon Manchester and Liverpool are both viable (well, they are). But they are the closest together of the lot, just over 25 miles apart by motorway (in Warrington you can see planes taking off and landing to the east and to the west). Sheffield airport was never going to be another Schippol or even Liverpool, but I don't see why it can't be another Barton aerodrome. Most of all I don't see why so much public money has to be wasted so that Peel Holdings can get a load of land next to the M1 for free, when all the council has to do is say to them, no, the runway is a public asset, you're making a profit already, keep it as it is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BasilRathbon Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 If we take global warmin seriously then we should be appalled that Sheffield has lost its airport so that people will have to travel further in noisy, poluting cars to get the flights they would have taken anyway. No, the more difficult it is to get to an airport, the more people will start to question why they need to fly in the first place and seek an alternative. Who, for example, would choose to take a domestic flight in preference to the train when you have to add the increased travelling time to the many drawbacks of air travel that already exist? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris@25 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 Who, for example, would choose to take a domestic flight in preference to the train when you have to add the increased travelling time to the many drawbacks of air travel that already exist? Someone that's seen how much train companies think they can get away with charging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bladesufc1 Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 dioes all this really matter? sheffield would never have been a big airport, they dont have the run way for this!! it was mainly built for businesses so that small planes could drop off cargo here instead of leeds!! we dont need an airport.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KenH Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 No, the more difficult it is to get to an airport, the more people will start to question why they need to fly in the first place and seek an alternative. Who, for example, would choose to take a domestic flight in preference to the train when you have to add the increased travelling time to the many drawbacks of air travel that already exist? I do agree with you, however, in recent years the aiprort has been viable without having any scheduled flights. The kinds of flights it attracts are those of visiting businessmen. However, the old-labour council seems to have an aversion to the kind of people who generate wealth and would prefer they landed at Finningley in which case they won't then use public transport and won't bother with Sheffield at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trainzfast Posted January 16, 2007 Share Posted January 16, 2007 The only thing that Sheffield airport brought the city was the enviable title of The largest laughing stock of an airport in the whole wide world Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now