[Anonymous]

[RichHI1]

It seems that a gorup of 30 COnservative MP’s including the MP for Spelthorne a constutency on LHR’s doorstep are asking the governemnt to reconsider the third ruway at LHR and the second (concurrent ) runway at LGW. This group called the Free Enterprise Group are putting forward the interests of British Business which is to be welcomed. They side step the issue of a new airport but observe building it will take years and in that time UK PLC will suffer competitively.

Looks like good news to me that International Business at last has a voice in this government. I dare say others will disagree.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16629194

[VintageKrug]

It’s an interesting development.

I think the objective is to bring forward the building of second runway at LGW, ending the restriction on its construction agreed with the local council (not central government) currently in place until 2019, as a sop for denying the 3rd runway at LHR.

As has been played out before, many people think the 3rd runway at LHR is a panacea, but it’s not.

A third runway would be a short term solution, really only providing modest increased capacity, and would be massively disruptive to the local area in its construction, and in particular would delay investment in the new Terminals and cause yet more disruption at LHR during both its construction and operation.

Beyond the hugely expensive and disruptive third runway proposal, there is absolutely no additional capacity for expansion at LHR. None. Not for runways, not for terminals. That’s it.

I really can’t believe that’s the right strategic solution for the UK.

There are plenty of other capacity increasing activities which would be undertaken which would deliver results without significant increased cost or disruption; these should be fully implemented first.

Whichever way you look at it, a strategic solution is needed. And that solution doesn’t involve LHR.

The question should now move on to what should be done with LHR longer term; its good road links would make it well positioned to become a high-tech business park, a good Western counterpoint to Canary Wharf.

Much good use could be made of existing (and newer) terminals as offices, and the runway space would provide excellent expansion space for skyscrapers.

[NTarrant]

And all the people working at the airport will work in the runway skyscrapers. Complete tosh VK!

The environmental impact will be less by having a 3rd runway than the mad hatters scheme of Boris Island. I would agree that the second runway at LGW is long overdue.

[VintageKrug]

Well, labour is surprisingly mobile.

I’d imagine people had a similar view of the plans for Canary Wharf in the late 1970s. It’s a very similar scenario, with the old docks being regenerated and used for business purposes, just as an old airport would be well suited to the new industries of tomorrow.

There is little point in moving a whole village and building a shorter runway on an already space constrained site which requires aircraft to overfly London and is closed midnight to 6am and would then prohibit any further expansion on the site whatsoever.

The Isle of Grain proposal is the right strategic solution for the UK:

http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/jan/18/boris-island-airport-thames-estuary

It is crazy that the restrictions on expansion at LGW haven’t been vetoed by the government; let’s hope this is the first step towards a compromise which will get that restriction lifted.

[NTarrant]

I’m not convinced that it will ever get off the ground (!), there will probably more opposition than a third runway at LHR. It would also require extensive road and rail infrastructure to avoid going through Central London.

It is just in the wrong place, whereas LHR is.

[Bucksnet]

VK, I really do think you are working for someone as you are always pushing some agenda that’s complete tosh. Either that or you are totally brain dead.

Gatwick already has 2 runways, and Heathrow had 3 runways until construction of the new T2 started, which is itself another half brained scheme.

The so called 3rd runway proposal would make Heathrow more of a mess than it already is, but it would add much needed landing capacity.

There is enough space at Heathrow for 4 parallel runways in 2 pairs, with a large single terminal or new terminal complex in the middle. You cannot have unlimited expansion anyway.

Building a new airport in the north sea is total madness, and will never work without massive government subsidy. No doubt it will continue to be pushed by CP assets in the cabinet office, like the £800 million to redo Reading train station.

Enough already!

[RichHI1]

Once again, threads get hijacked. Boris Island is not a goer for many reasons previously explored. A red herring dreamt up to take attention away from solving the problems.

Even if Boris’ Birdstrike Bonanza was to be policy it is 20 -30 years from completion and UK PLC cannot sit back and whistle. LGW should have a second concurrent runway and LHR should have a 3rd runway. These would reduce stacking and queueing in the short term and make more benfit to greenhouse gas production than the ludicrous EU ETS fiasco.

[IanFromHKG]

I am unconvinced by Boris Island too, but the idea of shutting LHR lock stock and barrel and replacing it with something totally new seems to me (admittedly no expert on any of the issues) as being the right way to go. How about using the HK model, choosing a whole new under-populated site, using reclamation if necessary, and start from scratch with a superb train link into central London at a sensible price and great frequency (our Airport Express runs every 10 minutes, takes 24 minutes, costs about GBP8, and has in-town check-in which is a massive boon), and the airport also has good ferry and road links. That surely has to be the way to go. Somewhere on the North Kent or south Suffolk coast, perhaps?

[NTarrant]

Ian , again the wrong places and people don’t just come from London and people don’t want to go via London.

[Bucksnet]

Ian, central London is not the only market for Heathrow.

[IanFromHKG]

Hah- yes, of course, I know that LHR passengers aren’t necessarily on their way to/from London – I was guilty of (a) extrapolating too closely the HK experience and (b) omitting to add that the train link to London should not just be for people for whom it is a destination or starting point but also because that is the ground transport hub.

ON that note – NTarrant, people may not want to go via London, but where else can you get the transport links? Also, please explain a bit more why you feel those are the wrong places? I am not trying to challenge your assertion, I just wanted to get a little more explanation so I can understand the issues (I am also curious to understand how you reconcile your assertion that the other current proposals are just in the wrong place, whereas Heathrow is in the right place, with your assertion that “people don’t just come from London and people don’t want to go via London”). My thought process was that reclamation might be a way of addressing the problem of existing land use, neighbouring villages etc and also that most of the flight path could be over water; while at the same time giving reasonably good access to the motorway network via the M25 and the motorways that link into it as well as the Eurostar. The alternative, I suppose, would be to build a hub for hub’s sake (which isn’t a destination in its own right) so you just pick the most underpopulated, flat place you can find. I hesitate to infuriate any Dutch readers at this point and I apologise in advance if I do, but it seems to me that Schiphol has done a good job of marketing itself as a hub – should we go down that road instead and move the airport right away from London? I am not sure the airlines are going to buy into that idea.

BTW, I always welcome criticism of my views, but it would be nice if people who shoot me down were able to suggest viable alternative ideas 🙂

[NTarrant]

Sorry Ian, I have aired these views on other threads, but quite simply the market for LHR is not just London. People forget the south and west of England, Wales, the M4 coridor and parts of the midlands which if LHR didn’t exist would have to go via central London or some circuritous route to get to say Boris Island.

Also not everyone drives to LHR, there is a large porportion who arrive by other means and would probably gain more by other means if there were rail links from the south and west. Look at LGW with its excellent rail links, I don’t know the figures but a good portion of LGW traffice comes from non-car.

My view is that rail links to LHR need to be improved and building the third runway. It would have far less environmental impact than Boris Island and current workers keep their jobs.

Hope that helps

[BeckyBoop]

I think you are all wrong.

LHR does need a 3rd runway and possibly a 4th just to ease congestion and for safety not expansion.

Boris island sounds just wrong (dont ask why its just a feeling). 😉

Ideally we do need a new airport but out side of London all together and like i said before Reading is the ideal location. Lots of empty land around the city, good transport links across the country by train, M4, less than 30 mins to LHR and M25.

Otherwise what about expanding Birmingham, centeraly (sort of) located in the country lots of transport links around the country. Would also be good for jobs in that area of the country where unemployment is very low.

[BeckyBoop]

or even High Wycombe, right by the M40, M25, A40 and a rail link and even lots of space.

[Author]

Posts