What I don't get about the expansion argument re London is the root of the opposition for a 3rd runway at LHR compared to a completely new airport in London. Is there even such an argument? It seems to be the general consensus is that LHR is in the wrong place (probably true) and that rather than keep expanding a slightly flawed airport (although a massively successful and progressive one) we should build a brand new one that creates less noise. Just of the top of my head some quick cons for each: -
LHR 3rd Runway
CONS
- Will create more noise
- Enviro mentalists see air travel as one of the biggest polluters and therefore are against a 3rd runway purely because this will increase as a result.
New airport/Boris Island
etc
CONS
- Hugely expensive, astronomically so!
- Years and years away, possibly even decades!
- Will almost certainly be built on an existing greenfield site which in it self will have to be a fairly massive plot not to mention all the drainage, services, roads, trains/tubes etc that come with it.
- There will still be noise, don't buy the argument that aircraft will come up the Thames (lets not forget loads of people live on the banks of the Thames!) as air traffic/fuel economy will dictate that aircraft will inevitably have to fly over some part of London (probably a part that up until now has been free of noise!).
- When the enviro mentalists stop bleating for the sake of it and realise a new airport is inherently more damaging to the environment than a 3rd runway (which would be built mainly over land that already has been built upon) and on so many more levels.
- It would completely undermine private sector investment (BAA on terminal 5/2 etc) which is something that is massively important to help bring the national economy back to life and that the government is hugely supportive of.
- Its mere existence as a credible option is preventing the UK from keeping up with the other big airports in the race to serve emerging markets and in doing so further undermine the fight to reignite our flagging economy. It's not even a case of hanging on to the coattails of the likes of AMS any more but at least still be in the race!
ETC
ETC
ETC
ETC
Honestly the list is endless. Most tellingly of all, whenever I see a programme on LHR (BBC recently spent a few nights live there) or indeed even meet someone who lives under LHR's flightpath people always just brush of the concept of noise as they either say they are use to it or they appreciate it is massively important to sustain jobs. So if the surrounding area seems to be largely supportive of LHR and its future success then who is against the 3rd runway? The enviro mentalists possibly but then once a whole new airport becomes tangible in any way shape or form then they will soon cause a far bigger uproar. It's the dog with a bone mentality. Plus as far as I can see they are against air travel increasing as a concept not anything specific like a 3rd runway at LHR. That just leaves Boris, surely the UK will not gamble its future on this fallacy to purely please his ego?
I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!