IET
Decrease font size
Increase font size
Topic Title: E&T magazine - Debate - A new airport for London?
Topic Summary: Is a new four-runway airport to the east of London a good idea?
Created On: 13 March 2013 10:33 AM
Status: Read Only
Read the related E&T article
Linear : Threading : Single : Branch
Search Topic Search Topic
Topic Tools Topic Tools
View similar topics View similar topics
View topic in raw text format. Print this topic.
 13 March 2013 10:33 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jpwilson

Posts: 64
Joined: 16 May 2007

For:
A new airport to the east of London is the best option for proper expansion.

Against:
A new airport to the east of London is not the best option for proper expansion.

The argument for:
Britain needs at least a four-runway airport. That cannot be achieved through the redevelopment of the Heathrow site to the west of London. A new site to the east has some real advantages in terms of ease of construction, relatively unconstrained operation and opportunities for economic growth and development on the eastern side of the capital. Starting with a cleared site means that you can design it to be one of the great airports of the world. In terms of surface access it could connect into London with both high-speed links and the local links necessary to get staff to the airport from a wide surrounding area.

There is still a role for Heathrow as a small airport. The opportunities for developing the site as it became available through a reduction in capacity would generate significant economic returns and job opportunities for West London. I hate the phrase, but I think it is a 'win-win scenario' for the capital and an opportunity for Britain to step up to being the leading aviation country in Europe.

The argument against:
West London Business (WLB), the Chamber of Commerce for West London, represents over 600 businesses in the area. Were an alternative hub airport to be built elsewhere, the effect on the west London economy would be little short of catastrophic. Lessons learnt from failed experiments with two hubs - in Canada and Japan - show that an economy the size of the UK's is only able to support one hub airport, so an alternative would mean Heathrow closing or seriously downsizing.

Heathrow is central to west London's £37bn economy. Not only is it a major source of employment, it attracts inward investment and holds international business here. Some 46 per cent of jobs at the airport are filled by people from the surrounding five boroughs. It is unrealistic to assume that all of these people would uproot their families and move to the Thames Estuary. WLB believes that the lack of a credible financial plan, together with a lack of social and environmental cost analysis, and the negative impact on West London and the Thames Valley, renders the Thames Estuary alternative unrealistic and unnecessary.
 13 March 2013 01:41 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 544
Joined: 17 September 2001

I can't help noticing that the argument against largely consists of "WLB's members will lose money if a new airport is built elsewhere".

I don't think the vested interests of a particular group of businesses is a good basis on which to determine the transport policy for the South East, and the country as a whole.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 14 March 2013 11:42 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

I would have considered building a new hub airport near the south mimms M25 junction in Hertfordshire (with runways built over the motorways) , and with fast transport links set up to Heathrow, Gatwick, Luton, to spread the air traffic load, so one community doesn't have to put up with all the noise and disruption.

Putting a new train line up to Standard Airport will be feasible as well from South Mimms.

At south Mimms you can set most of the flight paths so they don't go directly over major built up areas.

James Arathoon

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 14 March 2013 11:45 AM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004

I meant Stanstead Airport above.

-------------------------
James Arathoon
 23 March 2013 03:27 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



jarathoon

Posts: 1041
Joined: 05 September 2004



https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/aviation-policy-framework

"The aviation policy framework sets out the government's policy to allow the aviation sector to continue to make a significant contribution to economic growth across the country. It provides the baseline for the Airports Commission to take into account on important issues such as aircraft noise and climate change. It sets out government's objectives on the issues which will challenge and support the development of aviation across the UK."

Airports Commission Website

https://www.gov.uk/government/organisations/airports-commission



-------------------------
James Arathoon
 24 March 2013 12:33 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



westonpa

Posts: 1771
Joined: 10 October 2007

I think it should be a decision for those who live in London as it will be on their doorstep. I would rather see transport improved to/from Gatwick and to/from Stanstead.

Regards.
 24 March 2013 09:19 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



ectophile

Posts: 544
Joined: 17 September 2001

If it's a decision for those who live in London, then the answer will inevitably be "somewhere else".

Most of the proposed sites aren't actually in London, anyway.

-------------------------
S P Barker BSc PhD MIET
 05 April 2013 02:17 PM
User is offline View Users Profile Print this message



papoola

Posts: 1
Joined: 05 April 2013

hhhhhh
Statistics

See Also:



FuseTalk Standard Edition v3.2 - © 1999-2014 FuseTalk Inc. All rights reserved.