This report, as well as being incredibly biased, is basing the long-term future on present situations. At the moment, Stansted may be the weakest of London's pricipal airports and we all know why that is. In a matter of months, BAA will no longer own it and more importnatly, it will be seperately owned from any other London airport and will be more committed to by it's new owners as a result. Stansted will no longer be viewed as second best by its owner.
This report says, what if Ryanair move to Gatwick or airlines moves away due to their being more capacity for them to have a choice between Stansted and somewhere else blah blah blah. Well by the time in god knows how many years, more airport capacity is added, Stansted may have transformed into a very attractive option and may well be chosen by more airlines. It's impossible to tell what the future holds in terms of demand, economic situations and competitive advantage in the long term.
In terms of transport, nearly half of all the people who use Stansted travel to/from it by public transport, the highest of any major UK airport, so it can't be all that disasterous! It already has great road access with the A120 further into Essex and Sufolk and the M11 which terminates a fair way into London (unlike the M23 from Gatwick which terminates just after the M25 junction) allowing for quick and smooth road access to the capital. As for rail services, yes they could be better but people do use them and plans ARE being considered to improve them. There are well established plans to improve the rail network in East Anglia, in which improved connections to Stansted are being considered in those plans. Furthermore, there is a campaign called "Stansted in 30", which, quite self explanatory, is a call for the airport to have rail times cut to 30 minutes. Clearly this can be done and is feasible to do or it would not be suggested otherwise!
The Rail Engineer | Stansted in 30