HEATHROW

[Fairdealfrank]

Quote: “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’s a story of half a century of short-sightedness and dithering, and a government scared to death of small vocal minority.

Quote: “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: “

No consensus that LHR is in the wrong place: 20 mi. west of London, near several major motorways and a main railway line (the fact that long distance trains cannot access LHR at airport junction is hardly the fault of the airport), sounds like a relatively good location, accessible from most of the UK. It can't be any nearer to London because of the urbanisation that surrounds London.
　
Quote: “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”

Your list of “cons” for each says it all!

In the case of a third rwy, “will create more noise” is listed as a con, but it applies equally to new rwys anywhere, also, and this is an important point, by the time this rwy is built (if ever) aircraft will be even quieter, cleaner and more fuel efficient than now.

As for the anti-aviation environmentalists (sic), let's face it, they are equally opposed to an estuary airport, or any airport anywhere.


Quote: “I gather I have rambled a bit but it would be interesting to get to the bottom of who actually is against LHR?!”

Some eco-warriors from outside the area;
some “celebrities” jumping on the bandwagon;
some politicians (both local and national) out to make a name for themselves;
some residents but not as many as one might think;
the Libdems and the Greens;
a small vocal group of fairly well-off people who live miles from the airport, and believe, wrongly, that their property prices will fall.
　
　
　
Quote: “There are actually some really good reasons against expanding LHR which are vote winners. After a while economic reality kicks in and the lack of pragmatic alternative is painfully all too aware. Boris is Hell bent on taking all the benefit without any of the pain, Boris Island would not be in London, it's all about the politics and all politics is local.”

No, it’s not a vote winner/loser. Almost no voters will switch their allegiances on the issue of LHR expansion, Let‘s say that a “handful” may do so, but certainly not enough for a seat to change hands (that is the role of UKIP). There are plenty of issues much further up the list of priorities.

If it really was a vote-changing issue, do you not think that at least one of the various anti-airport expansion groups would have put up candidates for election (either at council or Parliamentary level) somewhere in the country?