Fourth London Airport

[ORAC]

Not in my lifetime I think!

The Times, London:

Fourth airport for London planned. .By Lewis Smith. . . .THE construction of a fourth London airport on the site of one of Europe’s most valuable wildlife havens is under consideration by Stephen Byers, the Transport Secretary. . .Cliffe, near Rochester on the Thames Estuary in Kent, is reported to be one of the options for extra airport capacity for London, to absorb increased air traffic. Other possibilities under consideration at the Department for Transport, Local Government and the Regions, are extra runways at Heathrow, Gatwick and Stansted.

All would prompt concerns over the environmental repercussions but Cliffe, one of Europe’s five most important estuaries and home to a new RSPB nature reserve, would provoke the most opposition. The marshland wildlife haven, home to birds such as black-tailed godwit, dunlin and knot, is under scrutiny by Mr Byers, the Financial Times reports today, because it is close to London, thinly populated and could be connected to road and rail links into London.

Cliffe, close to the cemetery that inspired the meeting between Pip and Magwitch in Great Expectations by Charles Dickens, would if developed as an airport have space for up to four runways.

Later this year Mr Byers intends to publish a consultation paper in which he is expected to confirm that three extra runways are needed in southeast England. Air traffic movements are predicted to double within 20 years.

A spokesman for the minister last night dismissed the inclusion of Cliffe among the options under consideration as speculation but refused to rule it out. He said: “The Secretary of State will be issuing a consultation document on the possible options in the spring.

“The responses to the consultation will feed into the aviation White Paper due later this year. The Government has taken no decisions at present.”

Andrew South, for the RSPB, said that the organisation would “vehemently oppose” an airport being built at Cliffe. “It is an extremely important site for wildlife and they aren’t going to build an airport on an RSPB reserve.”

[skua]

see also thread on Private Flying forum......

[BOEINGBOY1]

"fourth london airport" but we have five already.. .london heathrow. .london gatwick. .london stansted. .london city. .london luton

[Big Tudor]

Not forgetting the latest addition, London/Manston !!

[peake]

And London Ashford

nèe Lydd

[newswatcher]

...and London Southend Airport:

http://www.southendairport.net/images/fuelcard.gif

<img src="confused.gif" border="0"> <img src="confused.gif" border="0">

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: newswatcher ]</p>

[gofer]

And what about London/Farnborough and London/ Northolt to make 10 already ?

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: gofer ]</p>

[peake]

not to mention. . . .London Biggin Hill International. .London Elstree. .London Redhill

[gyrohead]

Hey Moderator Nazi's!!

What happend to my "New Runways for S.E. England" post??? it was the same informations as in this thread!! So why take it off? <img src="mad.gif" border="0">

[gyrohead]

....anyway, don't forget EGTF London Fairoaks!..

[Steep Approach]

A feeble attempt by the Times to get the environmentalists to join the rest of the transport industry in some 'Byers Bashing' :)

[StressFree]

Steep Approach,. .Quite right too, this man is totally incompetent and never fails to disappoint..........

<img src="cool.gif" border="0">

[Alt.cap]

In my view a weak and over-used political device.. .Let the environmental lobby believe that LHR is not everybodies first choice by going for a far more politically risky option. After a few enquiries and the like Byers can display his green credentials by agreeing not to proceed with Cliffe but opting "reluctantly" for his second choice. Pathetic.

[keithmachperson]

If Prestwick is now called Glasgow-Prestwick, perhaps the 5th London Airport (or tenth, or whatever) is London-Manchester

[Send Clowns]

I heard a rumour from within BA that this has already been decided - a new runway at Heathrow, alongside the new terminal. Now I know that it is not BA's or even BAA's decision, but you know how the current crop of crooks running the country is for telling their friends in industry in advance what is going on. The public and parliament don't really need to know, as long as BA and Virgin can plan ahead.

Does anyone else see here a plot to raise environmentalist hackles, so when the final announcememnt comes as a new runway at LHR the press is positive? If they just announce it now, there will be outcry from the local population, who bought houses near Heathrow expecting their peace to be undisturbed.

Anyone else heard this rumour?

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: Send Clowns ]</p>

[akerosid]

Personally, I hope it is LHR. What's the point in building a new airport if you have the THREE main airports already? As long as LHR is there, it will be London's premier international airport and as I have said before, it's not a choice - when it comes to international gateways - between LGW, LHR and STN, it's LHR -v- FRA -v- CDG etc. LHR is where it's at. LGW is about to become "Orange County" (wouldn't Stelios make a good John Wayne!) in a big way, so it's future as a long haul airport is slim, as is STN'S.

This will, as SB has said, be a tough decision, but LHR is not just London's main gateway, but the UK's most important economic engine; as long as LHR's capacity is limited, domestic flights will be squeezed out - happened to IOM, JER, GCI already. Okay, you mightn't think these are important, but what happens when it becomes the turn of ABZ, NCL and others . . .

[A and C]

Its all smoke and mirrors to make the new runways at LHR LGW and STN seem not such a bad idea to the public its a bit like trying to put an airport at cublington and then when you get to much protest relent and move it to wing and then make stansted the third airport !

Myself i dont give a damm about the site of a new runways as long as they do it fast because this "land after" thing and ultra high speed turn offs can only buy us so much time.

But what i would like to see is insted of paying a fortune to the blood sucking leaches in the leagal profession to hold another over long public enquiry the goverment make that money avalable to the people who will have there lives disrupted by the new runways.

But then that woud not do as the wife of a promanant member of the goverment seems to have a vested intrest in leagal matters.

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: A and C ]</p>

[Oliver James]

From the Air traffic point of view it isn't as simple as all that to build another airport to serve London.

Everytime you add a new airport (rather than a new runway at an existing airport) you multiply the conflictions between the SIDS out of them. The growth at Stansted and City is a good example: As they have got busier they have become more and more difficult to service efficiently and the job at Heathrow has been made more difficult in that endevour.

I wonder if the environmentalists have ever considered the amount of CO2 being pushed into the atmosphere by all the aircrft going around and around the holds waiting to land at LHR. Given current and future traffic levels it could be argued that additional runway capacity is environmentally friendly!

A and C has a good point. We are desperately behind the game on runway capacity and we need really quick action. At the best of times Heathrow is under pressure but imagine our position when we lose a runway or the wind slows the landing rate. Redundant runway capacity is an essential part of our safety culture. Filling it with traffic to avoid . .unpalatible decisions is negligent. <img src="smile.gif" border="0">

Point 4

[ 01 March 2002: Message edited by: 120.4 ]</p>

[Vmike]

Government plot? Subtle scheme to get a new runway at LHR? ******! I could do with a major airport 10 miles up the road from where I live.....get up at civilised time of day, bowl of cornflakes, cup of coffee, leisurely drive to work, fly the bucket and spade brigade to Malaga, have lunch, fly home, drive home in time for tea....luvvly-jubbly. Not to be I suspect, unfortunately! :)

[Rollingthunder]

Bloody hell, I don't know.

I know this, Birds on traditional flyways and layovers do not mix well with aeroplanes, taking off, landing, climbing, descending or cruising. Locate aerodromes as far away from these wee beasties as possible.

Did I hear the name Byers???

[Lucifer]

The additional runway at Heathrow scheme that was being plugged by BA was reported over a year ago on this forum and in the media - it was a shorter runway to the North involving the demolition of Waterside.

The Cliffe idea, although it could be good for transfers and the city is IMHO the wrong side of London, since it would attract fewer people from the rest of the country and clog up the M25 further as all try to get to the other side. On the other hand this could be a good thing in getting BHX to develop more etc. Anyone else seen the BHX plans that were in the FT on Friday?

[Young Paul]

Hey, hadn't thought of that! Compulsory purchase on a building when property prices have risen by 80% and need for the building has fallen by (let's say) 80%. And the government takes the stick for it rather than BA. Neat!

[Roobarb]

An old ploy. Threaten a few acres of the last remaining unspoilt habitat for the lesser spotted farting warbler. Tree huggers and bunny shaggers go ballistic. All of a sudden, a new runway at Hounslow Municipal doesn’t look all that bad.

Build it through Waterside, I say.

http://www.80scartoons.8k.com/roobarb3wee.gif

[Busta]

Anyone else remember Maplin?

nothing matters very much, most things don't matter at all.

[gofer]

Lu are you suggesting London/BHX as the N th London Airport ???. .. .If land communication between them worked - it would be OK - but given that it took close to 50 years to get rail to LHR & the M25 parking lot finished !!!!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Embarrassed]" src="redface.gif" /> . .. .Whatever they decide given that certain palms will need greasing and everything takes forever in the UK if an official is involved - apart from Waterside there will still be no easy interconnection.. .. .Ever tried going between any of the LON airports - The best is LGW-LHR and thats an unreliable mess -I rest my case.. . . . <small>[ 03 March 2002, 07:03: Message edited by: gofer ]</small>

[David Hurst]

I firmly believe that the next runway will be at STN and then LHR and STN will be the main airports and LGW will serve the market south of the river and the West End of London.. .STN is laid out more logically than either of the others, is designed to take expansion and the land is available across the access spine and terminal zone to build the second runway. There are also less people involved although those people are affluent and articulate.. .I really like the suggestion above that instead of the lawyers pocketing vast sums of money for an endless Inquiry, the money is spent buying out the owners of affected properties - or subsidising the difference between the non-airport value and affected value.

[Oliver James]

True enough Woodman, and you are probably right. . .. .Trouble is when they decide where to build airports is seems that little consideration is given to the ATC impact. Already Stansted is a difficult place to get traffic in and out of and growing it may have a significantly detrimental effect on LHR, LTN and LCY. . .. .On 05 it is absolutely impossible to provide any sort of noise reducing CDA. Traffic is forced down to 3000' or lower with perhaps as much as 30 plus miles to go. If the environmental interest is a reason for not choosing LHR then it must also count against Stansted.. .. .The entire airports policy seems to me to be an unplanned mess.