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?

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.

 
RocketTheme Joomla Templates