London's New Runway - Zac Goldsmith loses seat to Liberals

[MovedGoalPosts]

So after much delay and prevarication to avoid upset at the last election for so many Tory supporting areas, the airports commission has come out in favour of a third runway to be built on the north side of Heathrow:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-33340565

Inevitably many local campaigners, MPs, current London Mayor Boris Johnson, and others are all saying it's wrong. But many others, especially the business lobby support Heathrow expansion.

In my view you wouldn't build a new airport at Heathrow today, but the world was a different place when it started as a few tents in the 1950s. London Suburbs have expanded, and as Heathrow grew, so did the housing and other infrastructure that both supports and relies on it.

Heathrow is arguably better connected by road, and rail than the perceived alternative of Gatwick. But Gatwick expansion would be cheaper, and probably cause less disturbance to many. Expansion of either airports still warrants improved local transport.

Gatwick is the worlds busiest single runway airport. It and Heathrow are very close to capacity. In reality both airports are in need of expansion for different reasons. Indeed I think both airports should have an added runway, Heathrow so the much lauded hub status can be maintained, but Gatwick so that some of the Heathrow disturbance and capacity can be alleviated and spread around.

[techguyone]

They should just bite the bullet and do both, you all know in another few years they'll be doing it again.

[Osem]

Something needs to be done but this report is probably just the end of the beginning, nothing more. It'll be many years before a single sod is turned. On balance ,Heathrow does seem to offer the most benefits overall but extending Gatwick and Stansted would also have benefits and help distribute the load. Something clearly needs to be done but as we've seen with our power generating infrastructure, these things tend to take decades to sort out in the UK. God only knows what sort of impact any of these options will have on the M25 which itself seems to be running near, at or over capacity much of the time.

[denphone]

All in all l am for it as it is badly needed.

The Government is already playing down the recommendation and stalling on the decision. I think they're going to go with Gatwick.

[denphone]

Why can't they just bloody well get on with it.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Damien

The Government is already playing down the recommendation and stalling on the decision. I think they're going to go with Gatwick.

Cameron catagorically ruled out Heathrow as an 2009 election promise. Doubt he'd want another U Turn on his record.

The Daily Telegraph understands that the Prime Minister is now minded to oppose a major expansion of Heathrow for fear of angering voters.

Mr Cameron in 2009 said: “The third runway at Heathrow is not going ahead, no ifs, no buts.”

Linky

On the other hand he's quite duplicitous, must be that time being in hock to the Lib-Dems.

Personally I like Boris Island: Hong Kong built a whole new airport 18 miles out of the city with all the high speed infrastructure links. Just think hydrofoil links on the Thames to the city could whisk businessmen to the square mile faster than most other ways.

The airport has been commercially operational since 1998, replacing the former Kai Tak Airport, and is an important regional trans-shipment centre, passenger hub and gateway for destinations in Mainland China (with 45 destinations) and the rest of Asia. The airport is the world's busiest cargo gateway and one of the world's busiest passenger airports.[4]

The Hong Kong International Airport is also home to one of the world's largest passenger terminal buildings (the largest when opened in 1998). Hong Kong International Airport is one of the busiest airports in Asia. Operated by the Airport Authority Hong Kong 24 hours a day

Opened on 6 July 1998, a week later than the new Kuala Lumpur International Airport, it took six years and US$20 billion to build.

Shows what you CAN do if you really want to.

Wiki

[Osem]

According to Mary Creagh on the Daily Politics just now, any such development in the Thames estuary would have serious implications for flooding in London.

The problem we have is lack of space coupled with the sort of planning law which gives the opponents of any major schemes great power to delay them. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing but in places like China, Turkey, Dubai etc. they just ship people out (if that's required) and send in the bulldozers.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Osem

According to Mary Creagh on the Daily Politics just now, any such development in the Thames estuary would have serious implications for flooding in London.

Presumably claimed with no factual backup. Thames barrier works whether there is a new island in the estuary or not.

The problem we have is lack of space coupled with the sort of planning law which gives the opponents of any major schemes great power to delay them. I'm not saying that's necessarily a bad thing but in places like China, Turkey, Dubai etc. they just ship people out (if that's required) and send in the bulldozers.

Hence the attraction of a green field, well brown water, site. Oodles of extra space for more runways without tearing people from their homes. The Dutch are experts in building islands in estruries to reclaim land and have the kit on hand.

[Osem]

I don't know, she didn't explain but it was an immediate response when the subject of Boris Island came up. Given the timescales involved, maybe she's referring to the TB no longer being up to the job if an airport was built in the estuary.

Update:


Just reading up a little I found this which mentions the project and the inclusion of a new flood barrier.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thames_Estuary_Airport

My preference would be for a whole new airport but it's not going to happen.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Osem

I don't know, she didn't explain but it was an immediate response when the subject of Boris Island came up. Given the timescales involved, maybe she's referring to the TB no longer being up to the job if an airport was built in the estuary.

Probably more like she's got her heart set on Heathrow and is just finding fatuous excuses. If there's a new island there must be less water as it's partially blocked the estuary. That would help the barrier surely?

[Osem]

Apparently it was designed to 'float' above the water not displace it so I'm confused too.

The TB is going to have to be replaced at some point so at least Boris's scheme would include this.

Anyway, why have a nice bright shiny new airport with plenty of capacity when we can bolt another bit onto Heathrow and find ourselves short of capacity again a couple of decades later?

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Osem

Apparently it was designed to 'float' above the water not displace it so I'm confused too.

Don't think that's a goer. Like I say the Dutch have been making new land for centuries and have got it cracked, look at the extensions to the port of Rotterdam.

The TB is going to have to be replaced at some point so at least Boris's scheme would include this.

Yep kill two birds with one stone, proper forward looking.

Anyway, why have a nice bright shiny new airport with plenty of capacity when we can bolt another bit onto Heathrow and find ourselves short of capacity again a couple of decades later?

It'll look like the cheapest option but will end up being short of capacity, late and over budget mainly because of vociferous objection groups endless legal challenges.

[MovedGoalPosts]

The Thames Estuary provides a sort of reservoir into which all that tidal water being pushed around the English Channel and North Sea can be held without it all having to squeeze into the ever more restricted funnel of the Thames itself. Take away a large area of the estuary by building on or in it and that reduces the reservoir capacity potentially meaning the bottlenecked water will be more of a problem with a possible increase volume being pushed up towards London.

The real issue though is whether we, as a country, want to accept that we need communication and transport infrastructure to suit a modern economy. Air transport is here to stay whatever the environmentalists may say. Just as road transport has become more efficient, so has air transport. But it will never, in our lifetime, be green.

Our planning laws for major projects have become so convoluted and restrictive that doing anything takes forever. Inevitably these add a burdens significant costs through all the enquiries and other paraphanalia. We only have to look at HS2 which was talked about before the last parliament and still isn't close to construction starting.

So despite the need for more airport capacity, by the time that we manage to agree any new runway location, we'll already need a further runway. As a country we risk becoming so isolated that most of us will be doing short hops to Amsterdam, Paris or wherever has grown, before we can do the long haul stuff.

[heero_yuy]

Originally Posted by Rob

The Thames Estuary provides a sort of reservoir into which all that tidal water being pushed around the English Channel and North Sea can be held without it all having to squeeze into the ever more restricted funnel of the Thames itself. Take away a large area of the estuary by building on or in it and that reduces the reservoir capacity potentially meaning the bottlenecked water will be more of a problem with a possible increase volume being pushed up towards London.

An interesting observation:

FP: The airport itself does not change the nature of wider flood risks, but the development is an opportunity to integrate future flood protection with a wider infrastructure strategy. The Thames Estuary 2100 report from the Environment Agency looks closely at the impact on flood defences and habitat loss in the light of thermal expansion in the oceans and storm severity. This validates earlier work that we based our designs on to found the base level for the airport platform 7m above sea level, negating any flood risk.

TR: Metrotidal Tunnel is designed to provide the next generation of London’s flood defences without requiring a permanent barrier across the shipping channel, by using the controlled flood-storage capacity of the pools. The pools would provide a throttle for storm surges and a reduction in tidal squeeze

Source and additional info

The real issue though is whether we, as a country, want to accept that we need communication and transport infrastructure to suit a modern economy. Air transport is here to stay whatever the environmentalists may say. Just as road transport has become more efficient, so has air transport. But it will never, in our lifetime, be green.

IIRC some time ago experimental jet airliners based on current engine designs were being run on Hydrogen and fuel celled cars are just around the corner. If we can produce the Hydrogen using green energy we can still fly.

Our planning laws for major projects have become so convoluted and restrictive that doing anything takes forever. Inevitably these add a burdens significant costs through all the enquiries and other paraphanalia. We only have to look at HS2 which was talked about before the last parliament and still isn't close to construction starting.

A major issue in such a crowded island.

So despite the need for more airport capacity, by the time that we manage to agree any new runway location, we'll already need a further runway. As a country we risk becoming so isolated that most of us will be doing short hops to Amsterdam, Paris or wherever has grown, before we can do the long haul stuff.

Too true.