Alternatives to Expansion

Press articles

Just because BA and BAA say it's vital to expand Heathrow doesn't mean it's true. In fact, given assurances made at the time of the Terminal 5 enquiry, many take exactly the opposite view.

What are the alternatives?

Boris Johnson appoints Sir David King to examine Thames estuary airport plan PDF Print E-mail
Monday, 19 October 2009 00:00

Boris Johnson has appointed Sir David King, the former government chief scientific adviser, to spearhead a new panel investigating the feasibility of a new international airport hub on the Thames estuary as a report today concluded there were no "overwhelming constraints" to the project.

Johnson announced the line-up of the Thames Estuary Airport Steering Group on the day that a preliminary feasibility study was published finding that the concept of a 24-hour airport running 365 days a year on the Thames estuary presented "no insoluble issues" and ought to be examined in closer detail.

Johnson has invited the author of the report, Doug Oakervee, a civil engineer and the former executive chair of Crossrail, the cross-London railway project, to be on the steering group. Oakervee was asked by Johnson to undertake a study into the feasibility of building and operating an international hub airport within the estuary, similar to Hong Kong international airport.

Oakervee concluded that "although it is clear there are no overwhelming constraints to building an airport on the estuary, we are not yet in a position to decide when or how or exactly where it should or could be built". He added: "I cannot emphasise enough the importance of progressing this work."

Read the full article in
The Guardian.


Oakervee's report has a major factor in its favour - BAA was not invited to contribute and therefore has not been able to unduly influence it.

However, many questions remain unanswered. He says "The concern for the health and safety of the citizens of London and especially those under the flight path must be dealt with separately and differently since the introduction of an estuary airport is unlikely to resolve the problem in the foreseeable future. How this is to be done is however not the subject of this review" and "It certainly would appear that a further airport is required by or before 2030".

Even if this scheme were to get the go-ahead we will be fighting Heathrow expansion for another 20 years.

 
Heathrow-on-Sea travel hub inches towards Heathrow airport PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 18 October 2009 00:00

Plans to relieve congestion at Heathrow by building a sister airport in the Thames estuary have moved a step closer. The four-runway travel hub, nicknamed "Heathrow-on-Sea", would be connected to the existing airport by a 200mph rail line that would enable passengers to transfer between flights in 45 minutes. The project has been declared technically feasible in a report commissioned by Boris Johnson, the London mayor. He has now appointed Sir David King, the former government chief scientist, to conduct a more detailed study.

The estuary idea has gained extra impetus because plans to cope with expanding air traffic by building a third runway and new terminal at Heathrow could be mothballed, despite being approved by the government. The Conservatives oppose it and earlier this month BAA, the airports operator, said it would not submit a planning application before the general election.

The blueprint for the estuary airport has been drawn up by Douglas Oakervee, the engineer who helped plan Hong Kong's island airport.

Oakervee said: "We've got to stop this short-termist mentality in planning. If you do nothing to our airports by 2030, the shortfall will be massive. Even if you build runways at Heathrow, Stansted and Gatwick you'll be two runways short of what is needed. Forget arguments about a third runway, by 2030 we'll need a new airport."

Read the full article in
The Sunday Times.


That's an interesting observation by Douglas Oakervee. If BAA got their third Heathrow runway, does anybody seriously believe Heathrow expansion would end there? No.

That's why the third runway must never be built.

 
Heathrow-on-Sea set for takeoff PDF Print E-mail
Sunday, 12 July 2009 00:00

Looking out from Southend pier, the Thames estuary is a hub of activity. On a busy day its grey waters are filled with nearly 100 vessels a day, from 1,000ft container ships bearing tons of clothes and other consumer goods to oil tankers, passenger ferries, yachts and speedboats.

If Boris Johnson, the mayor of London, has his way these ships will soon be joined by the roar of Airbus A380s and Boeing 787s landing at a Thames estuary airport. The airport, which would cost an estimated £40 billion, would span four runways across two islands and operate 24 hours a day, with landings over water to minimise disruption to residents. It would be linked to mainland terminals by either bridges or tunnels, and powered by giant water turbines.

Read the full article in
The Sunday Times.


Let's see what Douglas Oakervee says in his report. There's much more to be taken into account than cost and location: environmental and health concerns, the effect on employment at the current Heathrow and the impact of high speed rail.

But it should be considered. After all, it doesn't have input from BAA, BA or the DfT, so there's value in that alone.

 
More Articles...
<< Start < Prev 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > End >>

Page 1 of 14
RocketTheme Joomla Templates