Heathrow Expansion - News and Debates

[TheLocalYokel]

I can understand the importance of rail connectivity to airports but LHR, LGW, STN and BHX already have this and services to London main line stations.

Did the report suggest that the airports would be linked with each other by train?

If so, I'm not sure how beneficial this would be.

 

[lysander]

The article , by Lord Berkeley, appeared in the July edition of the Railway Magazine. I quote:

" The London Borough of Hammersmith has done some work to demonstrate how many existing airports could, with some comparitively small changes to rail infrastructure, be linked directly to OOC [ Old Oak Common....diverting the WCML suburban services onto Crossrail via a new interchange at OOC] in less than an hour, by rail.These include ....then a whole list of London airports as well as Luton and Birmingham, Southend and Manston" The article continues" Taking all of these together, there is plenty of air capacity to enable new direct flights to anywhere in the world, with smaller developments at these airports to cater for the necessary growth".

I don't know the area at all well and have only flown from Heathrow and Gatwick when absolutely forced to....but it seems an interesting proposition.

 

[Ray Finkle]

I'm not sure about the other airports mentioned but Birmingham International to London Euston is currently 1hr 14mins on Virgin Trains with 3 trains per hour.

diverting the WCML suburban services onto Crossrail via a new interchange at OOC

Does that mean trains currently using the West Coast Mainline would be diverted onto crossrail tracks terminating somewhere in Central London making journey times shorter? Or would they terminate at Old Oak Common for people to then change onto crossrail to get into London?

If it's the latter then would arriving at Old Oak Common (in what they estimate as under an hour), then allowing time to change trains to get into Central London really be a significant enough time saving for the extra hassle?

 

[TheLocalYokel]

Does that mean trains currently using the West Coast Mainline would be diverted onto crossrail tracks terminating somewhere in Central London making journey times shorter? Or would they terminate at Old Oak Common for people to then change onto crossrail to get into London?

If it's the latter then would arriving at Old Oak Common (in what they estimate as under an hour), then allowing time to change trains to get into Central London really be a significant enough time saving for the extra hassle?

I can't see an immediate benefit commensurate with a significant spend of public money either.

It appears this is the Hammersmith Council pushing the claims of Old Oak Common (I'm old enough to remember it as a major BR Western Region steam shed) which is in its area - nothing wrong with that from their perspective but whether it adds anything to the nation's transport infrastructure seems arguable at the very least.

 

[News Guru]

Wimbledon MP wants to 're-examine' third Heathrow runway

Wimbledon’s MP has insisted he is still against proposals to a third runway at Heathrow airport, despite saying the Government should consider them as part of wider plans to increase the UK’s airport capacity.

Writing in the Evening Standard yesterday, Stephen Hammond said the case for the third runway should now be “re-examined” as part of wider plans to increase airport capacity in the south east.

Read more: http://www.yourlocalguardian.co.uk/news ... ow_runway/

 

[lysander]

As I said, I don't know the area well enough to have an opinion but given the likely opposition to a third runway and with the knowledge that a fair proportion of all traffic to Heathrow is just transiting to other UK destinations, I should have thought that any reasonable opportunity to utilise all spare capacity should be looked at without prejudice.

 

[muddycoffee]

I've never been convinced that it would be a good thing to expand heathrow any further. Large hub airports in my experience are a miserable experience. What is the point in forcing travellers to travel from other parts of England to the most congested part of the UK, it seems to me that it would be far more preferable to spead expansion across other airports and regional ones which have lots of spare capacity.

 

[Aviador]

Very true but you can't force airline to move outside of London.

I mentioned on another thread that many airlines are threatening to move to other hubs in Continental Europe if capacity cannot be provided by London Heathrow.

Whatever the case, governments shouldn't get involved it should be left to market forces where people travel from. Governments have spent decades damaging our transport networks with one expanding our transport systems and the next one government comes along and closes them. Our trains, trams, trolleybuses and airports have seen more government interference than I care to remember.

In any case, airlines know capacity exists in the regions. Manchester airport is handling around 19 million passengers a year but the airport has a capacity of over 30 million. If airlines thought it would be worth their while to up sticks and move from Heathrow to Manchester they would have already done so.

Manchester is just one example where there's excess capacity but there's numerous airports in England where spare capacity exists.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

There is speculation in at least one of the weekend broadsheets that the Transport Secretary, Justine Greening, may be removed from her post because she supports the idea of no Heathrow expansion.

But isn't no Heathrow expansion government policy?

Well, at times it is.................depends on who in government you speak to and who is asking the question.

In reality the government and any semblance of a joined-up aviation policy are as uneasy bedfellows that are ever likely to be encountered.

There are those who think that Madame Greening's aversion to a larger Heathrow is more to do with her need to remain chums with her well-heeled constituents who live close to the flight path than any altruistic concern for the environment.

 

[Seasider]

It has been stated again that the government's policy is no expansion at Heathrow.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

It has been stated again that the government's policy is no expansion at Heathrow.

It's a complete mess.

Whether he really wants an expanded Heathrow or not the PM daren't risk alienating his Coalition partner again after the falling-out over House of Lords reform and a half-hearted referendum (in Lib-Dems' eyes) re Proportional Representation.

Against this he's facing an ever-increasing wave of criticism from many of his own back benchers who believe that it's vital for the country's economy to expand the airport.

The All Party Parliamentary Group on Aviation has come out in favour of growth of capacity at Heathrow or a purpose-built hub airport (Boris Island?).

The Chancellor now recognises the need for capacity growth in the South East.

The All Party Parliamentary Group for Aviation also wants the government to undertake an economic analysis of the “impact of APD on growth and employment”.

There's plenty of talk from this side and that side but very little positive happening.

 

[Aviador]

It's a debate that is becoming more and more prevalent in the press week by week but I think the government will continue to dither until it either has a clear mandate, or it changes completely. Or in other words when it becomes just the Conservatives or Labour without the LibDems tagging on.

 

[lysander]

Perhaps UK PLC should really be adventurous ( forget the cost, in truth, we can afford whatever we have to....witness... 'casual' wars, bailing out banks etc. etc.) and build a new airport with 21 century rail/road links in an area that will allow for future expansion. The Chinese and Japanese have done so,as have others, including the French...We should build on the Thames Estuary and as for the problem of birds we should ask the Chinese who seem to have no problems on their new coastal airports.

Like widening Motorways, succesful airports will grow to capacity and then need additional runways...so a third runway could quickly become a demand for a fourth runway.

 

[Ray Finkle]

Independent airports commission may prepare way for Heathrow U-turn

"David Cameron and Nick Clegg are set to intervene in the increasingly fractious row over whether Heathrow should have a third runway by asking an independent commission to review the future of Britain’s airports. The commission could provide the Conservative prime minister with the political cover to perform a U-turn and authorise Heathrow’s expansion, most likely if the Tories win the next election." - FT (£)




•Simon Heffer urges the Government to U-turn on Heathrow: "A Heathrow expansion would create jobs, build confidence and help secure a prosperous future. It would also show we had a government that grasped what business — the only creator of wealth — actually needs." - Daily Mail

http://conservativehome.blogs.com/front ... newslinks/

 

[Aviador]

Perhaps UK PLC should really be adventurous ( forget the cost, in truth, we can afford whatever we have to....witness... 'casual' wars, bailing out banks etc. etc.) and build a new airport with 21 century rail/road links in an area that will allow for future expansion. The Chinese and Japanese have done so,as have others, including the French...We should build on the Thames Estuary and as for the problem of birds we should ask the Chinese who seem to have no problems on their new coastal airports.

Like widening Motorways, succesful airports will grow to capacity and then need additional runways...so a third runway could quickly become a demand for a fourth runway.

Some really good points there 'lysander'. As for the Chinese, isn't it a case of there aren't any birds near Chinas coastal airports because they shoot and eat them all? :s_dunno

Following on from what you've said, we built China a brand new airport in Hong Kong worth Billions £££ using British taxpayers money and then handed it back to them.

Source: goforthtravel.org

 

[Ray Finkle]

Looks as though they may have read your minds.

IoS exclusive: Secret plan for four-runway airport west of Heathrow

British business consortium pushes £60bn scheme with Chinese backing as confidential documents seen by The IoS signal new battle for skies over South-east

Ambitious plans for a four-runway airport near Heathrow are to be submitted to the Government as a solution to the aviation crisis that has divided the coalition, The Independent on Sunday can reveal.

A world-leading infrastructure firm is assessing sites to the west and north-west of London which could rival, or even replace, Heathrow to challenge other European hubs in providing air links with the Far East. Sites in Oxfordshire and Berkshire could potentially be in the frame for the airport, estimated to cost £40bn to £60bn.

Justine Greening, the Secretary of State for Transport, is to launch a call for evidence as early as this week on how to increase airport capacity, after winning a major political battle to rule out a third runway at Heathrow. All other options are on the table, and a brand new "London West" airport with road and rail links to the capital would be seen as a "wild card" capable of challenging the Thames Estuary airport idea backed by Boris Johnson, the London Mayor, and the architect Lord Foster.

Documents seen by The IoS confirm that specialist engineers who have worked on major aviation projects in North and Latin America have been asked to evaluate flat tracts of land that the consortium thinks might be suitable for such a huge project. The documents state: "Debate must be refocused to get political and business consensus on the criteria to be met by a future hub. As evidenced by HS2 [High Speed Rail], Crossrail, and the London 2012 Olympics, the development and delivery of any scheme must have cross-party backing and must be supported by business and the workforce."

The major feasibility study has been commissioned by a consortium of British businesses, which is expected to reveal itself within weeks and is understood to have started talks with Chinese sovereign wealth funds over funding the airport. Discussions with junior Department for Transport officials are also believed to have taken place over the summer, although sources indicated that Ms Greening was not aware of the details of the plan.

The IoS can reveal that the criteria in a confidential briefing document drawn up by the consortium to identify potential sites states:

* Environmental and noise requirements: any new site will need to have a 16km long x 3.5km wide glide path either side of the airport, without overflying large built-up areas

* A flat site to allow for runway layout oriented around west to east, or south-west to north-east direction, with terminals and associated infrastructure

* Be readily accessible by surface transport corridors... road and rail

* Be located no more than 30 minutes' journey time from London.

The transport links and journey times into the capital mean that the project's location is almost certain to be on the Great Western Main Line, which runs out of London through Maidenhead and is being revamped, or High Speed Two, the proposed 250mph rail link between Birmingham and London. The speed of the line brings locations further outside the M25 into play, including areas to the north-west of Heathrow.

The Conservatives opposed a third runway at the 2010 election, but in March it emerged George Osborne was keen to reconsider, under pressure from business groups who fear Britain is losing out to other European airports. But last week Tim Yeo, a Tory MP and former environment minister, challenged David Cameron to show if he was a "man or a mouse" by backing Heathrow expansion. And last month Mr Johnson told the PM to stop "pussyfooting around" on airport expansion and warned against kicking the issue into the long grass until after the 2015 election.

However, later this month the Liberal Democrats will restate their opposition to airport expansion. A motion at the party's annual conference in Brighton will "firmly" reject the Thames estuary airport, rule out new runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted, and propose better use of existing capacity.

It also demands an "independent, evidence-based study to find a location for a hub airport or a suitable airport to expand into a hub for the long-term" which could clear the way for the consortium's proposal.

Supporters of this airport believe Ms Greening could be open to the project, after opposing Heathrow expansion because of the impact on her Putney constituency.

The consortium wants the new airport to have four runways to compete with other major, growing airports such as Schiphol, Amsterdam, which has six, and Frankfurt and Paris Charles de Gaulle, which have four.

It is unclear if Heathrow would survive should the plans be accepted, though it is thought the two could complement each other in the first years of the new airport's operations.

An industry source said: "What this idea does is put people's pipedreams, like 'Boris Island', to one side and shifts the political debate away from Heathrow, to work on something that is based on properly grounded infrastructure requirements."

Pressed by The IoS as to why the consortium will not yet reveal itself, the source added: "These are very serious people. They want all their ideas aligned before coming forward publicly – this is going to be pretty impressive stuff."

Q&A: What can be done about the future of Britain's air transport?

Do we need a new airport?

We need more airport capacity, according to the Department for Transport. Without new runways London's three runways will be at capacity by 2030, and by 2050 annual passenger numbers will be 50 million lower than if there were no constraints.

Is Heathrow the problem?

Unlike most other airports in Britain, Heathrow is almost at capacity already, with 70 million passengers arriving and departing in 2011. Every day 190,100 pass through on 1,250 flights, drinking 26,000 cups of tea.

Why not expand existing airports?

Heathrow is Britain's only "hub" airport, where passengers arrive on a short-haul flight and then leave on a long-haul flight. Other airports such as Gatwick and Stansted are "point-to-point" airports, which fly direct to destinations where there is demand. Trying to link, say, Gatwick and Heathrow would make transfer times too long, it is argued. Residents living near existing airports are also likely to oppose more flights.

Why will no one make a decision?

There is no easy option. People like going on holiday and flying around the world on business, but they don't like being woken up by planes rumbling over at all hours. And when people come to vote, they'll think of their good night's sleep, not the good of the economy.

Where do the parties stand?

Labour backed a third short runway at Heathrow in 2003, but under Ed Miliband argues it is "now off the agenda because of the local environmental impact". David Cameron announced his opposition to a third runway in 2008, but senior Tories including George Osborne are agitating for a U-turn. The Lib Dems oppose any expansion of existing airports, but want a study for a new airport.

Is it about being green?

Yes and no. Politics play a big part too. Cameron's move to block the third runway was seen as the first major indication of his new environmental credentials, after his infamous huskie-hugging trip to the Arctic. But the real impetus was closer to home – there are votes to be won and lost among those living under the flight path. Some environmentalists, including Tim Yeo, chairman of the Energy and Climate Change Select Committee, argue that new Europe-wide caps on carbon emissions mean that new capacity can be supported, forcing additional reductions in C02 elsewhere.

Are we losing out to other countries?

According to most business groups, yes. With economic growth likely to come from China and South America, offering regular flights to these new markets will be crucial for long-term prosperity. Frankfurt has four runways and flies to 277 destinations. Amsterdam Schiphol connects to 247 destinations using six runways and Paris Charles de Gaulle has four runways serving 236 different places. By comparison, Heathrow's two runways serve just 162 destinations.

What about Boris Island?

In addition to the new west of London plan, revealed by The IoS today, there are other ambitious ideas on the table. Boris Johnson's scheme for an airport in the Thames estuary is just one. The architect Lord Foster has plans for another on the Hoo peninsula. None of them has yet found favour with ministers.

When will extra flights take off?

If a third runway were given the go-ahead, it could take a decade to build. A whole new airport could take longer, although Johnson claims his Thames estuary airport could be built in six years. Either way, no option will help the economy to take off soon.

http://www.independent.co.uk/travel/new ... ml?afid=af


http://news.sky.com/story/979774/secret ... st-airport

 

[Aviador]

All very good and well but wont a new airport to the West of London just add to the bleed from airports in the South West and the Midlands in particular.

 

[TheLocalYokel]

All very good and well but wont a new airport to the West of London just add to the bleed from airports in the South West and the Midlands in particular.

And the next one......................roll up, roll up.

First Boris Island, now some unspecified and vague sites in leafy Oxfordshire or Berkshire.

Sounds a bit like the various schemes for an airport in the Severn Estuary that surface from time to time and then disappear beneath the waves.

If the good people of Madame Greening's constituency are able to put the voting frighteners on her what chance for those MPs representing Oxon and Royal Berkshire if they were to put their weight behind the 'proposal'?

 

[Ray Finkle]

It seems the future of aviation in Britain may well have been kicked well into the political long grass.

Heathrow: Government to study airport expansion plans

The commission will report after 2015.

Lesson one in how to defer a U turn until after the next election?

 

[Aviador]

Heathrow expansion won't happen, says Vince Cable

Vince Cable says there is "formidable" cross-party opposition to a third runwayContinue reading the main story

An expansion of Heathrow Airport is "not going to happen", Business Secretary Vince Cable has said.

His comments came after the government launched a commission on how to increase the UK's aviation capacity, amid fears business is losing out.

Mr Cable told BBC One's Andrew Marr Show the value of this exercise was to "look at the alternatives".

Full Story: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-19535359

The LibDems seem to be following the same line as the Conservatives but in true government style (of any colour) it's looking like they intend to bury their heads in the sand and wait in hope the problem will go away.