[Binman62]

I would like to see an new airport in the Thames Estuary and think that for once Boris has this right. Building time will 10 years plus but it will not just be an airport. If built and designed properly, with supporting infrastructure such as high speen rail links to the the UK as whole as well as the continent it could pose real competition to AMS and CDG and could potentially allow for the closure of LGW and LTN leaving STN to ryan air.
I also agree with airpocket on who should run it with just one slight alteration. The Spas must be run by the Balinese.

Above all however the BAA must not be allowed near it.

[Inquisitive]

There is a lot of debate about Heathrow expansion – however cheaper options are not really evaluated thoroughly. I like the view of London while landing (plus located nearby) – hence I will always support Heathrow. However the best option is to expand LGW to a 2 runways airport and transfer all long haul flight to LGW. Heathrow shall handle only European flight. For connecting passengers there shall be a very fast train link between LGW and LHR. With modern technology, time to cover this distance by train could be same as transfer bus ride from T1/T3/T4 to T5. Converting LGW should be achived witin 5 billion and with that competitivness of London could be maintained, no 3rd runway at LHR will be required and future growth would still be possible.

[Tom Otley]

Interesting debate.

There are four reasons why the Thames Estuary airport won’t be built (IMHO).

1. It would necessitate closing down LCY.

2. Planes taking off to the west which is the prevailing direction would go over London anyway (negating one of the reasons for moving it from LHR).

3. For one third of the year the winds are such that the aircraft would have to come in over London as well.

4. Because the Thames Estuary is 50 miles further east than Heathrow, the aircraft would have to be brought down through Dutch airspace.
(At the moment you come down into LHR skirting the edge of French and Dutch airspace, but the Estuary airport would put aircraft right into it – and it would also affect Stansted airspace).

Tom

[transtraxman]

Inquisitive has hit the nail on the head but for one aspect. It is assumed that the options are Stansted and Gatwick while forgetting Luton.

Both Gatwick (from north of Greater London except the Thameslink axis) and Stansted (from anywhere except Cambridge) are rather inaccessible while Luton provides a better service from Central London ( and the Thameslink service from south of the Thames)

In my previous post I included the option of allowing all the four main airports in the South East to have two runways. The market would provide the answer to which would prevail. However, I always had in mind that the improved access to Luton airport (electifying the whole MML to Sheffield and Leeds) would mean a tremendous increase in demand for Luton (without having to go through Central London for most people). This would benefit both the bottleneck of London and the alternative services to Luton (including those on the Thameslink services from south of the Thames).

Think again and forget about Maplin madness or any other airport in the estuary.

[FlewTooFew]

Glad somebody’s finally talking about Luton! Space to expand, already has motorway/rail connections (including to the South of London), is in the right place to be relatively easily reached from the big cities of London and Birmingham (plus those further North) and could be straightforward from Oxford/Cambridge.

Surely the obvious location to replace Heathrow as a hub (if that’s the intention) and it must be less expensive than creating a new island even with improving the current links (high speed rail from St Pancras anyone?). Very few people would plan an airport far from most of Britain and closer to rival hubs in Europe…?

[NTarrant]

The idea of a high speed rail link between LHR and LGW does have some good merits in making London a hub. The line could then be extended between LHR and LTN. It would also have the benefit of enabling journeys from the south east to the midlands without the need to cross London

[alamyfly]

Do I get the idea that some contributors would like the new airport sited so far to the East of London that Far Easterners, Far Eastern Companies and Far Eastern service levels should prevail? I’m all for that!

Seriously, the Thames Estuary project is a no-brainer. Miss the opportunity now and we’ll only be doing it later, but after having wasted huge sums applying further bandaids to our current dated and grossly inadequate London offering.

[continentalclub]

Be in no doubt, the only reason that an estuarine airport flies politically is that birds don’t have the vote.

As long as certain politicians are seen to support a proposal which has no electoral downside, they can also seek to avoid the risk of being implicated in the practical, pragmatic and inevitable (re)development of existing airfields.

The birds, meanwhile, risk not being sucked into the debate, but instead into the GE90s.

[transtraxman]

It is so true what Continentalclub says.
Political expediency plays such a great part in decisions. It is so cynical.

A second runway at Luton, for example is so planned that it effects very few people but there are always nimbys. Nimbys have a greater influence the higher their affluence and such is the reason for no second runway so far at Gatwick. Personal interest is paramount – what about the common good?

[AMcWhirter]

Now even Boris has doubts about his Island airport plan:

http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/standard/article-23812541-confusion-over-boris-island-airport-plan-as-mayor-says-i-dont-want-to-build-it.do

[VintageKrug]

Delightful day in London yesterday.

We have all come to expect a certain level of background aircraft noise, and it was a delight to walk in the Park yesterday without aircraft overhead.

You can even hear the birds singing, and I can imagine (until the has actually starts falling as it has in the North of the country) the level of air pollution is significantly less.

This exceptional period will deliver some interesting data on the side-benefits of removing the capital’s airport to a less central location.

Amusingly, the birds are now copying the sound of a car alarm which has just gone off!

[VintageKrug]

This graphic seems to illustrate what would be planned quite well:

http://www.propertyinvesting.net/cgi-script/csNews/image_upload/default_2edb.thames_estuary_airport.jpg

[VintageKrug]

And as we welcome wholeheartedly fresh new blood into Number Ten on this most splendid of evenings, it seems this plan edges ever closer, while the Third Runway at LHR is looking ever more less likely to be built.

Terrific news indeed!

[VintageKrug]

And indeed no new runways in the south east’s current airports.

Let’s hope a proper high speed rail link AS WELL AS a new airport which doesn’t pollute London will start a more considered planning process in due course.

[Binman62]

It took Labour years to lose the trust of the country, it took the LibDems just 5 days. I fear that as well as no new runways we will soon see 4 million strong dole queues as well as decaying schools and hospitals….just like the last time. Self interest and greed has again prevailed. Sad day and very far from being a splendid.

[Author]

Posts