[transtraxman]

I am astounded that such reactions, yet again, can be provoked from an article of fewer than 300 words in a 2 bit local rag.
In the second paragraph the writer admits that the proposal is only one of ten possible. It is obviously a non-starter. Of more importance is what the other nine are.

Let us keep some ideas clear. There is never going to be a new greenfield airport – it is not only politically unacceptable, it is also unnecessary. Neither will there be any construction out in the wet quicksands where freezing storms, gale force winds, fog and bird strikes are an everyday danger.

Airport expansion will go forward – the question is where. Without doubt it will be at an existing airport.

Many factors have to be taken into account to decide where to expand, not least the accessibility from everywhere in the country, not only London. To focus minds let us look at just one factor, the distance from Charing Cross (as the proverbial crow – or is it B737 – flies) to each airport mentioned or possible.

The aforementioned(in the original article) Haddenham is 64.25 kms. from Charing Cross so is obviously too far from the capital..
Heathrow 23.15 kms.
Gatwick 39.20 kms.
Luton 44.25 kms.
Stansted 49.20 kms.
Southend 57.75 kms.
Isle of Grain 58.00 kms.
Foulness 73.50 kms.

Please notice that the last four are on the east of the Greenwich Meridian, noticeably at a greater distance, and less accessible for the vast majority of the population. I think it is, therefore, easier to draw feasible conclusions.

[VintageKrug]

The comment is based on the Transport Select Committee yesterday, chaired by Labour’s Louise Ellman.

It’s quite clearly becoming a political football as yet again the Labour Party seek to restrict growth on a greenfield site due to their small-minded and anti-trade stance.

The problem with the sticking plaster of a short third runway, followed by a fourth, or indeed four totally new runways to the west of London which wouldn’t alleviate the noise and pollution over London and would still require massive infrastructure investment in an already congested and expensive land corridor near Windsor is daft.

There is obviously agreement over the need for a four runway airport, and soon, which betrays that the type of solution is widely agreed.

Where it is sited – at a long term base East of London vs. a continuation of the inadequacies of the Heathrow site is the issue.

[HongKongLady]

The article is obviously puff and nonsense. Hopefully someone somewhere is looking at real options.

[canucklad]

VK…..What you are now seeing is the tried and trusted methodology of drip,drip,drop of news…….Our equivalent of the Potomac 2 step….

I listened to Louise Ellman on radio 5 live this morning……Forget her Labour credentials, she was definitely being interviewed in her role as Vice chairman of the Select Committee!!

The questions I would now be asking is timescales and 3 or 4 runways at LHR !

[VintageKrug]

Thankfully the Transport Select Committee has very little influence.

It will be the Davies Report which will determine the way forward; I think it will recommend a 4 runway hub solution, I am not yet certain where that will be sited.

[BigDog.]

Totally agree Canucklad – LHR is the odds on certainty – but with 3 or 4 runways?

[smith101]

An airport to the west of London would certainly be more accessible to a greater number of people than an airport out to the East. I still favour increasing capacity at Gatwick though (although that probably has an awful lot to do with me living in South London and it being the easiest airport for me to access). A second runway at Gatwick and high speed rail link to Heathrow would seem a much cheaper option than Boris Island.

[SimonS1]

There is no easy win unfortunately. The local papers round where I live (mid Sussex) are full of diagrams this week of where the flight paths will be if a second runway is built. Obviously it’s good for the papers to ferment a bit of disorganisation but wherever it is will likely result in long, tedious enquiries.

[Henkel.Trocken]

Is this proposal dead in the water? I must say, I can see its attraction. It would allow a much more accessible and centrally situated airport than the estuary option which does seem to be the only option under consideration.

London needs a new airport but there must be more accessible sites than the Thames Estuary.

[AnthonyDunn]

If HMG is forcing, err “inducing” the denizens of Buckinghamshire to swallow HS2 through the Chilterns, does anyone imagine that the same citizens are going to take mildly to a four runway major international airport being parked in their midst? If it took over a decade for T5 at LHR, then this would take decades. With all of those Tory shire seats at stake, this has to be seen as a canard, a complete non-starter.

Whilst an Isle of Grain hub might be “on the wrong side of London”, it has the advantage of not being near or involving overflying of significant population centres and even if the RSPB can agitate, waders did not have the vote the last time I looked.

[Henkel.Trocken]

I think it’s precisely because it’s in the Tory Heartlands that it’s such an interesting proposition – no doubt many of the people resident there use LHR a great deal and also agree that thing need to be done but how the NIMBYs will squeal if their turf is threatened!

[DutchinSwitzerland]

As mentioned already above, people complain a lot about LHR until someone proposes to build a new, highly-efficient airport in their back yard. The problem with this proposal, IMHO, is that it still involves airplanes flying at moderate or low levels over populated areas. As I mentioned in another thread I believe that expanding LGW is the most economic option to add capacity to London/UK aviation. The Thames plan is good as well since it doesn’t involve planes flying over populated areas. If the decision is made to go to the Thames the connections will be there as well.

[Author]

Posts