Heathrow expansion gets go-ahead

[xxMATTGxx]

I always thought the third option of a new airport would make sense, didnt boris propose an island base airport

There was a suggestion of that - It came with quite a few disadvantages:

• It would require major investment in local infrastructure (roads, railways, schools, hospitals) in order to service the tens of thousands of employees at a major airport.
• There would be considerable upheaval involved in moving London's main airport to a new location, though other major cities have successfully moved their main airports, including Paris (1974), Singapore (1981), Jakarta (1985), Munich (1992), Denver (1995), Oslo (1998), Hong Kong (1998), Kuala Lumpur–International (1998), Athens (2001), Bangkok (2006) and Doha (2013)^[18] while other cities, such as Montréal, have had difficulty with such a transition.
• There would be significant job losses at Heathrow, and knock-on impacts to the economy of west London.
• Fog would be a key difficulty to overcome for a possible hub airport. In 2012, the Met Office concluded that the Thames Estuary was 'three times' more foggy than Heathrow.^[31] Fog and snow frequently affect flights at Heathrow, forcing aircraft to leave more space for take-off and landing due to low visibility.^[32] Whereas a Thames estuary airport could transfer travellers by Eurostar and new fog guidance systems can be used to overcome these issues, however Heathrow has not yet installed them.
• The construction costs of the airport alone would be large, estimated at £11.5 billion for Cliffe, and £3.5 billion more for an offshore island scheme.
• There would be large costs for constructing road and rail access to the airport. These were estimated at £1.8 billion for Cliffe, including two rail connections to High Speed 1, a road tunnel under the Thames to Benfleet, largely to access the south east Essex labour market, and other road and rail connections. Heathrow rely on public transport and funding for transport infrastructure; major upgrades are also required and need to be considered for rail and motorways.
• Proposals rely on using capacity on High Speed 1; however, it currently only uses under 10% of its full potential.
• Building an artificial offshore island can be expanded; however is time-consuming, adding 3 to 5 years to the construction time.
• There is a risk of bird strike, higher for coastal sites, lower for offshore sites.
• The level of demand for an airport in the Thames estuary is uncertain, and may require government intervention to force airlines to use it.
• The massive skilled, semi- and unskilled workforce that a new airport would require (currently all situated in or near West London)
• Building a major new airport to expand capacity may encourage more flights, and thereby increase emissions of CO₂ and other greenhouse gases, unless a channel tunnel is connected to replace many flights.
• The presence of the wreck of the SS Richard Montgomery, which has around 1,400 tons of explosives on board. A safe way to remove the wreck, present since 1944, has not yet been found.
• It would require a radical upgrade to the current flight patterns which are based on 1970s patterns, and the proximity to Dutch and Belgian airspace may cause knock-on effects in other countries if not planned properly like Heathrow.
• The South East of England (SE) is already highly developed, with a population density reported (in 2011) as the third (or sixth, by other criteria) most dense in the world. Many areas of the SE already have three or four layers of audible air traffic over them.
• The location would be more difficult to access from the rest of the country compared to Heathrow.
• Building the airport would destroy the habitat of thousands of wetland birds.
• The airport would be placed in the flight path of four of London's five major airports (Heathrow, Gatwick, Stansted, and London-City).
• London Southend Airport would have to close down. Due to its close proximity from the planned airport sites.
• A 2012 report by the South East Local Enterprise Partnership prepared by Parsons Brinckerhoff concluded that they "do not believe that [the Thames Estuary Airport] is a viable solution to the capacity issues facing the SE." in the short term, but "applaud the fact that a long term solution is being seriously discussed".^[33]
• Infrastructure - building of new main airport (and the required supporting industrial, technical and hospitality activities) may be very costly, especially to achieve the same position and size of terminals and technologies like in case of Heathrow or Dubai ports, where, despite cheap sand start place, the cost of all was very big.
• Travel to London ticket price. Unknown is how much the ticket may cost, and if the airport would be at position of London tariff schemes. The position of Heathrow as part of the London underground system is often cited as a cost and time difference. For an average traveller usually the time and cost to travel into city centre would be main reason of choosing. Location in the deep sea may be treated as an advantage for most people, only if the travel time (at least by public transport) would be faster or similar that from LHR, and would cost less, or for e.g. be fared like usual Zone 1 ticket.^{[34][35][36][37]}
• The proximity of Amsterdam's Schiphol airport would also affect traffic patterns and force aircraft into more circuitous flight paths.^[38]
• The potential interference with one of the busiest shipping routes in Europe.^[39]

[Joe]

Can someone explain why one of the other options was extending one of the runways? Why was that an option instead of a brand new runway. Surely two planes can't take off from the same runway?

[-:Undertaker:-]

The island would have been the best option really but that assumes that we're capable of running anything on budget anymore, having any kind of vision and being able to deliver it in reasonable time. If it'll take them 50 years to build a railway, imagine an island airport.

I'd have legislated for an extended Heathrow (done by 2020 max) and built an island airport (by 2028 max).

[Alkaz]

And looks like he is calling a by-election.

Whether he stands as Independent or still Conservative we'll see in next few hours. Although I disagree with him on Heathrow expansion he is representing his constituents and I would certainly vote for him in the coming by-election. He's one of my favourite MPs.

Zac Goldsmith has already tendered his resignation to Richmond Park Conservative association, my colleague @Martha_Gill has discovered.

— Paul Waugh MP (@paulwaugh) October 25, 2016

****, could you not post a smaller picture? Lmao

Also as someone living in Kent, I don't know why they never made a real consideration for Manston Airport. I know it's a bit out of the way but it's right near Margate with HS1 links to London and it's also right next to the proposed Boris Island. The main argument put forward was that the infrastructure isn't in place for that to be considered as a viable option. However they're going to have to totally remodel the area around Heathrow / Gatwick anyway so I always saw this as a bit of a stupid argument against it. Also, with the proposed Paramount Park in north Kent as well as the lower Thames crossing I think it would have made sense to at least consider Manston and taker some of the heat away from London and the dreaded M25.

[Inseriousity.]

As someone speaking from the North and watching the local airport die, I find it strange there isn't more inter connectivity and using all parts of the infrastructure around the country but admittedly, I have no informed opinion of the issue. It's quite a dry subject, isn't it lol. I have little interest in reading the arguments for any side.

I agree with Dan though that I really like Zac Goldsmith and it's good he's sticking with his promises. I liked his arguments for a Recall Bill that never made it onto the statute books. I think he really appreciates democracy and I respect that.

[xxMATTGxx]

Can someone explain why one of the other options was extending one of the runways? Why was that an option instead of a brand new runway. Surely two planes can't take off from the same runway?

The northern runway is currently 3,902 metres long - Their idea was to extend that to around 6,650 metres. Then somewhere in the middle there would be a 650 metre safety zone.

The first half of the runway would be used for landings and the second half would be used for take offs. In theory it would work and I think it was approved by the CAA that it could be done. Although I don't think there is any other airport in world with that kinda setup.

- - - Updated - - -

The island would have been the best option really but that assumes that we're capable of running anything on budget anymore, having any kind of vision and being able to deliver it in reasonable time. If it'll take them 50 years to build a railway, imagine an island airport.

I'd have legislated for an extended Heathrow (done by 2020 max) and built an island airport (by 2028 max).

Yep, I think places like Hong Kong/China/Japan have managed to create an airport on a man made island and seems to work. But the UK would take far too long to build something like that I would imagine.

- - - Updated - - -

As someone speaking from the North and watching the local airport die, I find it strange there isn't more inter connectivity and using all parts of the infrastructure around the country but admittedly, I have no informed opinion of the issue. It's quite a dry subject, isn't it lol. I have little interest in reading the arguments for any side.

I agree with Dan though that I really like Zac Goldsmith and it's good he's sticking with his promises. I liked his arguments for a Recall Bill that never made it onto the statute books. I think he really appreciates democracy and I respect that.

I'm going to assume you mean Durham Tees Valley? Unfortunately it's one of those airports that was never going to be a massive hit with airlines and passengers Which is why most people would probably get themselves to Newcastle and fly from there instead which has better connectivity and flight options.

When people want to travel they want to make it easier for themselves which is why you wouldn't really want to land in the north if your final destination is London.

Heathrow is not only important for London but it's a massive hub for connecting flights. Many people will get themselves to LHR and then get onto another flight to get them to their final destination which is probably on the other side of the world.

[scottish]

I remember recently watching this too

[FlyingJesus]

We have enough trouble managing the island we already live on without building another one but good to see that this can at least BEGIN to happen

[-:Undertaker:-]

Ukip not fielding a candidate and backing Zac Goldsmith's run as an Independent.

UKIP backs Goldsmith on his Heathrow stance https://t.co/7GrhUbT9UK pic.twitter.com/YZLC2fpKHe

— UK Independence Party (@UKIP) October 27, 2016

Dynamics will be interesting between Conservatives, Goldsmith and Liberal Democrats. Money on Goldsmith I guess.

[FlyingJesus]

"We realise that we're a pointless party now and so will not be bothering to do anything but it's still fun to pretend we're relevant so here's a statement that doesn't really say anything"