Consultation to go ahead for Thames Estuary Airport

[Chris]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212

I don't see why we can't build a third runway at Heathrow, I mean it has got the terminal capacity at the moment, but it needs more runways - surely a third runway at Heathrow would be much cheaper than a whole new airport and the infrastructure for an airport, as well as meaning that there would me one major hub so that it would be easier to transfer flights than if you came into Heathrow and left from the Thames Estuary. The environment around Heathrow is already ruined so building more there wouldn't make much of a difference, whereas the Thames Estuary is extremely important environmentally.

[GurraJG]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-16606212

I don't see why we can't build a third runway at Heathrow, I mean it has got the terminal capacity at the moment, but it needs more runways - surely a third runway at Heathrow would be much cheaper than a whole new airport and the infrastructure for an airport, as well as meaning that there would me one major hub so that it would be easier to transfer flights than if you came into Heathrow and left from the Thames Estuary. The environment around Heathrow is already ruined so building more there wouldn't make much of a difference, whereas the Thames Estuary is extremely important environmentally.

Because there's probably some rich Tory donor living close to Heathrow.

[Kevo00]

I would have thought the easiest airport to expand would be Stansted. But no, Boris wants to have his island (as if some daft buses weren't enough of a 'legacy').

[JamieLei]

To be fair, it's not just Boris. There are lots in the government that believe the island in the estuary is the best decision forwards in the absence of Heathrow. I'd be all for it, but access from the rest of the country would be rather bad - after all, it's not London airport, it's the airport of choice for flying anywhere from south of Manchester really.

[Geo Ghost]

Heathrow won't be expanding because of all the people going up in arms about it. And others like Gurra said.

Though one thing puzzles me (well many things..). Building this airport along the Thames Estuary which means planes flying low over the water all the time.
This might just be me, but has anyone in the planning team for it failed to notice the fact SS Richard Montgomery is still sitting in the Estuary? Admittedly on the other-side of the river, but still... surely that's not the brightest idea in the world if just for that reason!

Also, the distance to London is ridiculous. We'd need a special high-speed link just for the airport so people can get into London. People going by car would no doubt find the journey difficult.
Also, I'm certain that most of the area around there is marshland and floodplains. As well as the ground not really being suitable for building on.
Yes, it gives us the chance to make a new airport with a blank canvas. But surely... this can't be thought through.

Plans for Stansted expansion should have gone through. Plenty of land around there and very few built up areas that would get disturbed.

Gatwick too has a lot of area around it for possible expansion. However, unlike Heathrow, the transport I believe is much better (This one is mainly down to personal experience and what I see). Whilst by road it's still pretty busy, you can actually get in and out a lot easier than Heathrow where it's easy to get confused, jammed and end up in the wrong place. Gatwick also has far better rail transport than Heathrow. The main route not only goes up into Central London, but right the way up as far as Luton Airport and then Bedford. Heathrow just has the London Underground which, we all know, is not the easiest thing to get around on. Even less so if you're carrying a load of luggage. Then we have Heathrow Express. A fast, direct route to London which is extortionately expensive! With Gatwick there's the Gatwick Express but if that's more reasonable in price and at least we have Southern and FCCl to provide the rail services.
I've never understood this whole "We need a second runway at Gatwick!" ... I don't know if people have noticed, but there ARE two runways at Gatwick. Just because only one can be used and they run parallel to one another doesn't make them a single runway. Though if anyone knows why such is overlooked, please let me know as I would like to hear about it

What I think? Use the money to expand Heathrow and make the transport connections better. That's what it needs! There's plenty of space around for relocating houses and enough space for expansion being on the edge of the Green Belt. The land around Heathrow should have been safe-guarded after it was built encase it needed to be expanded one day.

Build some new homes, possibly slightly better than the current to entice people more into the idea of moving. Keep them reasonably close to the area. Just on the other-side of the M25 perhaps. Improve the transport connections, move the offices back towards the M4 and expand the airport Northwards towards there. There's space to do it I believe. Just no will power or acceptance from people. The only people who should be against it are those in the local area. I cannot understand why people on the other-side of the country have any view of it without knowing what it is like at all.
Plus, you'd think living in such a busy area, people would jump at the chance to move further away from the airport

That's my view anyway. Damn I end up typing a lot without really noticing!

[orudge]

I reckon people are going to be more up in arms about a hypothetical Thames Estuary airport than they were about the third runway at Heathrow. Maybe this is therefore a way of the government saying "hey, so, you didn't want that third runway, how about we spend billions on this massive new airport in an estuary? What, you don't want that? OK, so back to that third runway..." - we can but hope, perhaps!

[Chris]

I reckon people are going to be more up in arms about a hypothetical Thames Estuary airport than they were about the third runway at Heathrow. Maybe this is therefore a way of the government saying "hey, so, you didn't want that third runway, how about we spend billions on this massive new airport in an estuary? What, you don't want that? OK, so back to that third runway..." - we can but hope, perhaps!

I don't think anyone in government would have the intelligence to do that!

[61653]

Just goes to show, you can't have a sensible decision like HS2 without some ridiculous pie-in-the-sky thinking to redress the balance!

I know many on here will disagree with me, either on grounds of preference or because they have more knowledge on the subject than me, but I think with just a bit more sensible planning (and bigger teeth for Government regulators) there'd be no need for this extra capacity anyway, Especially seeing as HS2 is going to serve Heathrow- why spend billions extra on a Heathrow spur if Heathrow's going to be downgraded in the future- Just means there'll be more money thrown at extending Crossrail and a spur from HS1 to the new island (which, given that sea levels are set to rise, will need to be raised to quite an elevation if the facilities provided are expected to last for 200years or so). Flights to destinations either on HS2 or on the European HS network should have some sort of extra taxation applied to them to discourage use, but of course the Aviation industry would be up in arms about that. There are lots of routes where flying is the only viable method, and capacity at airports and in the skies should be prioritised along those lines. In the 80s & 90s it may have seemed sensible to build an entire island as an airport- certainly in Hong-Kong where the existing airport was so cramped that it was potentially dangerous- but this is the most stupid idea since the Blair government suggested using unproven maglev technology on what is now going to be HS2- It's even more stupid than the Penistone Tram-Train proposal!

[Wasila]

I know many on here will disagree with me, either on grounds of preference or because they have more knowledge on the subject than me, but I think with just a bit more sensible planning (and bigger teeth for Government regulators) there'd be no need for this extra capacity anyway, Especially seeing as HS2 is going to serve Heathrow- why spend billions extra on a Heathrow spur if Heathrow's going to be downgraded in the future

How so? Until HS2 reaches Manchester at least, it will have very little impact on domestic flights.

[GurraJG]

What about Southend?

[orudge]

I understand (and I'm not sure how much of this is actually true) that the Hong Kong airport plans were partially designed to get rid of as much of the capital funds Hong Kong had built up as possible before the Chinese got hold of the territory!

Also, remember that Heathrow is close to a lot of important high-tech business areas, and also that airlines have spent billions investing in infrastructure at and near Heathrow. They're not going to be keen to move all that to a new airport. They're also not going to want to split up and move their operations to the several other London airports - the point of Heathrow being a hub is that you can make easy connections between a range of airports. So whether it's at Heathrow or elsewhere, there is always going to be one large hub airport in London, and expanding Heathrow is certainly going to be cheaper and easier than building a new one!

[61653]

Theres all this talk of needing extra capacity, but is there any particular reason why expanding Gatwick never seems to be mentioned? I imagine the land will be quite expensive and there'll be a fair bit of nimbyism too. If, for example the North Downs line was upgraded (and maybe electrified, either overhead or 3rd rail) and the connecting capacity between Heathrow and Gatwick was improved, that might reduce the competition for capacity at Heathrow. Indeed, if the 'Airtrack' Southern link to Heathrow was revived, this would provide more options. If the various sites are well-linked, there's less requirement for everything to be in one place surely?

[Ameecher]

I've never understood this whole "We need a second runway at Gatwick!" ... I don't know if people have noticed, but there ARE two runways at Gatwick. Just because only one can be used and they run parallel to one another doesn't make them a single runway. Though if anyone knows why such is overlooked, please let me know as I would like to hear about it

The runways are too close to each other to be used simultaneously and the "spare" is shorter than the main and is used as a taxiway, if you could use both you'd actually lose capacity as there is no room for the taxiing manoevures to access one of the runways, let alone both. Also the spare doesn't have high-speed exits meaning that it can't handle as many flight either, effectively is one runway with a spare should the main one need repair.

[Kevo00]

In my experience Gatwick's congestion is almost worst than Deathrow's - I've been on flights there that have taken an hour from gate to take-off. But just looking at Google maps suggests that site may be difficult to build a new runway at too, as although I'm no expert I assume they have to be parallel and not perpendicular to each other. Although maybe one can be fit in on the south side without demolishing too much of Crawley - though the A23 would need to be put in a tunnel or realigned.

[teccuk]

In my experience Gatwick's congestion is almost worst than Deathrow's - I've been on flights there that have taken an hour from gate to take-off. But just looking at Google maps suggests that site may be difficult to build a new runway at too, as although I'm no expert I assume they have to be parallel and not perpendicular to each other. Although maybe one can be fit in on the south side without demolishing too much of Crawley - though the A23 would need to be put in a tunnel or realigned.

The additional runways at Gatwick were a little way away, east of the A23 I seem to remember. My memory might have failed, the original white paper had indicative maps if anyone can track it down. Got the first stage of the Planning contract before the paper was thrown out, best meetings ever in an office on top of the bridge, great view!

What frustrates me is this is just going to be a discussion, a consultation, with a number of options. Typically of England, the minute anything that even resembles proper new infrastructure is mentioned a whole range of special interest groups mobilise to place as many obstacles as they can in the way.

(I stand by HS2 being a misplacement of resources though )

[Chris]

(I stand by HS2 being a misplacement of resources though )

[Kevo00]

(I stand by HS2 being a misplacement of resources though )

Its not going to Bristol *runs*

There is quite a bit of empty land at Gatwick on the other side of the M23, but then planes would have to taxi quite some way or another terminal would be needed - effectively another airport!

[Pilot]

There is quite a bit of empty land at Gatwick on the other side of the M23, but then planes would have to taxi quite some way or another terminal would be needed - effectively another airport!

Think of Amsterdam Schipol Airport. On of the runways there is quite a distance away from the main terminal. That didnt mean they needed to build another Terminal, It just meant building a Taxiway over a Canal and Motorway.

[teccuk]

(I stand by HS2 being a misplacement of resources though )

Its not going to Bristol *runs*

There is quite a bit of empty land at Gatwick on the other side of the M23, but then planes would have to taxi quite some way or another terminal would be needed - effectively another airport!

Ignore me, my memory was completely wrong. Here it is: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... esoutheast

Gatwick's second was planned to the south.

Hi Class165, my point was, that whilst I deride this nimby / banana attitude to absolutely everything from small housing estates to high speed rail, i do actually think that resources would be better spent elsewhere in that specific case. But that's for another topic

[Kevo00]

Ignore me, my memory was completely wrong. Here it is: http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov. ... esoutheast

Gatwick's second was planned to the south.

They put it exactly where I would have. I should become a transport consultant.

Looking at the map of Schipol, it would suggest that perpendicular runways are fine, so they could also accommodate one running roughly north-south between Charlwood and Horley, and one across the M23 between Smallfield and Copthorne. Bingo, our problems are solved, a 4 runway hub with motorway and mainline rail access and no need to build an island.