[VintageKrug]

I don’t disagree that using these airports a little more is a good idea for dedicated point-to-point services; but these smaller airports exhibit all the problems of our current airports (noise impact on local communities), would require significant investment to bring a range of facilities up to par for mass commercial aviation and in addition are not very well linked to public transport.

They would be a relatively good “sticking plaster” but they are *not* a strategic alternative to LHR. Nor is a Third Runway, limited to shorthaul, at LHR; the capacity requirement is a step change from that sort of stop-gap. There is absolutely no space at LHR for any further expansion after this third runway/sixth passenger terminal. None.

It would only take another BA38-type incident on the approach over London itself for a catastrophic result, and for calls for LHR to be closed to be widely supported.

Much better for the UK to actually grab the bull by the horns and develop our strategic infrastructure to equip us for the next 50-100 years by building on a new site an airport with the right 20-30minute transport links to London, the capacity to handle 150million travellers per annum, scope to expand further as required and to reduce the air and noise pollution and crash risk experienced currently by densely populated areas of London.

[ViajeroUK]

Last paragraph of VK’s post makes sense, Heathrow cannot go any further.

A new purpose built airport north west of London area could be linked with proposed HS2 Rail to provide a fast direct connection not only to London but Midlands and further north as well. Ideally it would be sited between M1 and M40 with a link to both roads to easily connect with the whole of the motorway network.

[continentalclub]

Much as I admire Boris in many ways, and no less for raising the profile of this issue, his arguments and proposals for the estuary airport are fundamentally compromised by his own position.

He is the Mayor of London and, as such, he can champion no project which would be developed outside of his ‘patch’. As there is no practical site for a new airport within the bounds of mayoral his reach, he can only alight upon the watery expanse that currently is within no-one else’s.

The issue for Britain, however, is not the location of London’s principal airport; it is the location of Britain’s principal airport. Boris is not the man to address this, but well done to him for trying to push the problem up the national agenda. Sadly, London ratepayers are funding the campaign.

In many ways, binman62 and ViajeroUK have the right idea. Any new hub airport for Britain needs to be to the North and West of the capital, and perhaps appreciably so.

Stansted is a non-starter; it is not even particularly well-connected to London and corridors to the population centres West and North (there is nothing to the East anyway) are lamentable at present and would not be economically viable to develop.

Gatwick is too space-constrained and suffers from London being in the way of most of the population.

The key to the development of a new, globally-leading, hub airport is that it needs to be sited with relevance to existing transport traffic flows and population centres, as well as offering the space and capacity to service not just shorthaul/longhaul connections, but longhaul/longhaul. It’s flows like Mumbai to Chicago that generate the cash that give us the excellent connections from a point in the middle that we currently enjoy. It’s the Emirates way.

Siting an airport in the Thames Estuary is probably a non-starter simply because of the proximity of Dutch and Belgian airspace. But economically it makes little to no sense either, as it’s nowhere near any population centres, and perversely distant from any but London.

If HS2 is to be anything other than a complete white elephant (assuming that it ever gets beyond an expensive and politically-expedient compulsory-purchase phase) then a new airport must lie upon it. Getting both Heathrow and central London on to an HS2 alignment that displays any kind of logic would require seismic shift of Big Bang proportions.

So, with 200mph rail connections North and South (and an HS2 spur West to Birmingham), sensible relevance to population centres, properly networked road access and space to allow real longhaul connectivity, the only sensible proposals would centre on locations like the ‘Golden Triangle’ bounded by Nuneaton, Hinckley, Rugby and Daventry; the M1, M6 and M69.

http://bit.ly/ednCmy

It is already where the UK distribution industries have colonised, and they know a thing or two about transport networks.

To get an idea of why proposed locations for major airports are relevant to existing population centres and flows, maps such as the following are useful:

http://bit.ly/gpoWib

Unfortunately, I can’t find one for the UK, but this Tulsa example explains graphically why the location of their airport makes such sense given its position between the two largest surface traffic flows. Draw one for Britain and you can almost directly replace Tulsa with London, Broken Arrow with Birmingham and Owasso with Leeds.

Of course, London pressures may favour a location further South and East between the M1 and M40, but transport network planners would tell you that a Northern site would actually be economically superior by virtue of proximity to existing traffic flows, whilst avoiding adding to the exisiting congestion of the lower reaches of the M1 and M40.

In any event, it does seem to me that Boris Island is a dead duck, weather or not ducks prove deadly over an estuarine airport.

[MartynSinclair]

……….and where is the money going to come from??????????

I agree the country needs a long term solution, but I favour short term interim fillers that can benefit society and business sooner rather than later. Economic and social planning for the next 150 years is a great idea VK – but there is a more immediate issue that needs to be considered whilst you cogitate and threorize about the future.

If the smaller airports can ease the pressure now, to free up valuable slots at the bigger airports, then yes, it is a sensible short term solution until a bigger plan is made and a decision on funding is agreed.

[LuganoPirate]

At the risk of a rocket from VK I’m with Martyn on this one. We don’t even know how transport will look in 50 years, let alone 150. I could envisage the following (even if a little star trekkish)

All short haul, up to 1,000kms by ultra fast trains, using a second channel crossing, most likely a bridge.

From 1,000 to 3,500 kms using VTOL aircraft carrying 350+ pax. This would allow compact VTOL ports in city agglomerations or even from high rise office buildings.

3,500 kms plus by long haul aircraft such as twin bodied A380 carrying 750+ pax.

I could envisage a giant airport with 10 runways somewhere between the English Channel and the North Sea. This would serve London, Amsterdam and Brussels, and possibly Paris, using ultra high speed trains capable of 500 kph and using bridge / tunnel connections.

By this time with population growth the land on which major airports such as LHR sit will be needed for housing and will be too valuable for an airport. The Netherlands and Belgium (the Flemish part) will be in much the same situation.

Far fetched? Not necessarily so!

[DisgustedofSwieqi]

When considering strategic options, it is generally wise to consider three potential actions

1 – improving what already exists – to this degree, the idea of using resources such as Biggin Hill and posibly other resources such as Alconbury for point to point travel is certainly worth close scrutiny, saldy the attempt to run low cost services from Manston failed, perhaps because of the distance from London, per MS’s point about getting people into the terminal

2 – Develop a new strategy; despite what Continental Club says, I still believe that Stansted could be developed realistically. The rail service could be fixed to Liverpool St (it is not viable on only two tracks) and could be there a lot faster (the average speed is less than 60mph presently) and the interchange to the underground network at Tottenham Hale is already there. What is missing is a good rail connection to the west of London, but that is a matter of will and budget. Stansted sits on the M11, giving good north and southbound access and connects to the M25. Despite the hell that would be raised by local residents (understandably), there is space to add 2-3 runways. I don’t believe that people from the south east (where the majority of UK plc money is earned) would support an airport in the midlands, despite the logical argument for this.

3) Consider the existing paradigm and whether it is time to change it. I like Lugano Pirates visioning piece and this cries out for some scenario planning, like what will be using for fuel.

In short, there are things that can be done today at the tactical level, things for the future at the strategic level and beyond that, the development of a vision to guide in the very long term.

That’s my tuppence, safe travels to everyone.

[transtraxman]

The whole debate about the question of a new airport for London (or extension of the present airports) is ridden with prejudice, misinformation and self-interest. It should, therefore, be valued with those thoughts in mind.

The coalition government´s decision to prohibit any extension of Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted was a preelectoral sop to voters to ensure their parties´ election – take note that no mention was made of Luton where there are Labour held seats.

The expansion of Southend, Lydd and Manston airports together with “London” Oxford smacks of hypocrisy of the highest order. Airports are not just runways and terminals. They are ancillary services, connexions, public transport, taxis, cars, lorries, noise and air pollution. By expanding these airports are you trying to alleviate the problems at other established airports? – I doubt it, you are just creating more problems than ones you are supposedly resolving..
The established airports have the infrastructure in place. London is privileged to have four major airports (plus London City) to serve its and the nation´s needs. The problem is and has been the lack of political will to solve the problems of lack of capacity in the South East. In comparison Frankfurt has one airport, Paris has two while New York has three.

Heathrow has grown to full capacity because everyone wants to connect through there – to the detriment of the UK traveller who sees his connexions reduced. Therefore, the need for a third runway is obvious, not for long distance traffic but to ensure connexions with the rest of the British Isles and near Europe(the Benelux countries and Paris). Any limitations on such extra traffic should be based on noise and engine pollution.

Gatwick´s new owners say they do not want to expand to a second usable runway. They cannot anyway , until 2019, at least. What they really want is to get everything up and running well before that date so they can present a good convincing business case when the time comes and then show what a mess everything is elsewhere so their case for extension is incontestable(which airport owner would deny the opportunity to expand?).

Stansted was pushed as London´s second airport in the early 1970s (and rejected). It has grown by stealth since then. The traffic levels subsequently achieved were probably not even imagined then. Even though there is now a dip in passenger numbers, growth will continue in the mid to long term. Here the basic infrastructure is in place and any improvements would have to be made anyway (especially in the rail corridor).

Luton is the one airport not mentioned but in the best position. Forget that the majority of its traffic is devoted to charter and holiday flights (was that not the case for many years at Gatwick?). Luton has excellent connexions on the Midland Main Line(MML) to East Midlands, South Yorkshire and Leeds – which could be improved through electification and even to Manchester. When the Thameslink project is eventually finished then 24 trains per hour will provide direct service to South of the Thames and the South coast.

The solution is therefore, based on demand. Heathrow must expand to three runways with the view that that is the limit. Then another airport must be named as its major compliment. By the type of present traffic Gatwick would be the ideal place to lay a second runway. However, the affluent residents of that near area would not be too keen and so would probably ensure it is not built.

Stansted was proposed as the second airport and has been trying to achieve that objective. However, it is in an area where it is out on a limb which would need tremendous investment to make it an attractive proposition. The Crossrail project could give it good connexions to Central London, the M4 corridor and Heathrow if such were the desire. On the other hand, like Gatwick the affluent nimbys would probably put a stop to it.

What is left is Luton. This is well connected to both Gatwick and East Midland airports. Customers from south of the Thames will be able to reach it as well as those from north of London who could do so without entering the capital. As said before it is on the MML giving it excellent connexions northwards meaning passengers would not have to put pressure on London´s transport system.

Thus our conclusion is that Luton should be focused on as the next major London airport.(this was explained in our blog of 5 July 2010 – Luton, the Next Best Bet?) A second runway should be laid down and land reserved for a possible third and even fourth runway. If not then all the airports should be permitted to expand to at least two runways. The cost should be born by the owners of the airports. If there were free choice in the matter of expansion then market forces would come into play to ensure that the costs to the users do not become prohibitive. The cost to the government would be the necessary upgrading of the infrastructure to the airports (this has to be done anyway so is not extra).

The onus must be on public transport and connectivity. Where public transport exists it should be bettered, making it more attractive to use and encouraging the public to leave the car at home. The connexions to London, other cities and other airports have to be a priority to increase the attractiveness of public transport thus reducing traffic and subsequently pollution. Until the love affair with the car is broken then the problems of traffic volume, air pollution and noise will not be reduced.

[Age_of_Reason]

Bang On, TTMan. A reasoned and logical analysis with a simple set of conclusions, most of which do not contradict the major premises of all the above.
1. develop your best existing asset, for least resistance = LTN
2. fill it by supply rather than guessing demand = interconnect everything with rail.
3. get on with it

[FlewTooFew]

Surprised it took so long on this thread for Luton to be mentioned –
Well done TTMan!

For some reason this topic almost always seems to miss out LTN – have I missed something? To reiterate TTMan’s comments; it’s a more suitable location for the majority of people who live outside London and already has road and rail links – including as far as the south coast.

Politically I would have thought the, already existing, link to HS1 would aid the ‘green’ argument. Plus, as and existing airport it could be incrementally expanded to become the necessary hub for the UK.
If it were linked with HS2, they would help each other become more attractive for travellers.

One final point to note – the closure of the Vauxhall plant at Luton left a vast area for development opportunities and, I assume, a local work force in need of jobs. Having not been near Luton for many years I assume the opportunities for commercial developments linked to an expanding airport on the site have probably disappeared, but wouldn’t it have been a political coup for somebody to announce a silver lining to end of manufacturing in the area?

[continentalclub]

There are two problems with Luton as a location for a hub airport. Neither are completely insurmountable, but they do compromise the economics.

The first is that the level of surface transport congestion in the Luton area is already extreme. This has long been a pinch-point on the M1 and, even with recent upgrades, the timescales that development of a new airport would involve will guarantee that congestion levels will have risen yet further in the J9-11 area.

The second is that the sheer scale of the landgrab required renders space a problem at Luton. The terrain covered by the area involved is far from flat, and the costs of making it so, coupled with other major works, would render it a significantly more expensive proposition than some others – and it may also be difficult to maintain operations at LTN during a redevelopment.

Nothing is impossible – Hong Kong proves that – but economics are fundamental.

The further plus of developing a greenfield site to the North means that there would be no ongoing requirement for either the existing Birmingham (or indeed Coventry) airports, and the closure, sale and redevelopment of these would be net positives to the new facility’s cost/benefit ratio.

Indeed, Luton may also be redundant and redevelopable, as well as Heathrow.

[Delsurrey]

Where is this Luton people are referring to? Is it north of Watford!

[VintageKrug]

Much better to plonk a nice fat island off the coast of Kent using plentiful landfill, and plonk a few runways on top, just as Boris proposes!

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/09/22/article-1058862-02BF16E900000578-14_468x298_popup.jpg

[Charles-P]

Delsurrey – “Luton” is an urban wasteland some 50 miles north of London. It consists of a car plant, chavs and what many people presume to be the film set of Max Max but is in fact the High Street.

However for those of a certain age it will always be where a woman “wafted in from paradise”

[VintageKrug]

http://www.visit4info.com/advert/Campari-Luton-Airport-Campari/14583

[Age_of_Reason]

So we’re agreed then.

Luton Airport is ripe for expansion to a new UK Hub, on a basis of location, communication, interconnection, beneficial environmental impact and short-term inconvenience.

Let’s go. Bin Moylan.

[Author]

Posts