Stansted Expansion
Discussion
Is Boris right? http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2012/oct/04/bor...
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded. The last proposals were beaten by a very loud & well organised minority IMO.
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded. The last proposals were beaten by a very loud & well organised minority IMO.
I don't see why there is a need for a "24hr hub".
I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
Murph7355 said:
I don't see why there is a need for a "24hr hub".
I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
Because people want to come to London or transit to other places that only a huge hub allows.I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
rich1231 said:
Because people want to come to London or transit to other places that only a huge hub allows.
So all seats for flights into London (for those visiting) are full? And there is known/soundly projected demand for a sufficient number more to warrant 80bn being spent on a 24hr service?Also, why is a huge hub the only way to do this? In the overall scheme of a long haul journey, why is a transit a problem that cannot be contended with? If all airports worked collaboratively, including those in Europe, would that not be an overall better solution? Or are all airports in relatively close proximity all running at capacity?
I'm no tree hugger, and only partially a nimbyist - ie IMO these sorts of thing shouldn't be in *anyone's* back yard unless there is a cast iron reason for doing it and all other alternatives are ruled out for sound reason.
Expanding airports if current flights are only running partially full simply allows partially full flights to perpetuate. Fill all current flights first, and rationalise routes if there is insufficient demand.
rich1231 said:
Murph7355 said:
I don't see why there is a need for a "24hr hub".
I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
Because people want to come to London or transit to other places that only a huge hub allows.I also don't see why we seem intent on cramming more and more into the South East.
Haven't we just built some pretty quick rail links to the midlands? What about spreading the load around the country a little if we are desperate for more capacity? Are we really? Where are all these extras passengers going/likely to go, and if it's a transit hub only, why are we bothered?
[quote=bad company]
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded. [quote]
I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded. [quote]
I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
ShredderXLE]ad company said:
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded.[quote]
I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
Expanding it to a hub would bring many more people to the place.I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
ShredderXLE]ad company said:
I live near Stansted and always thought it should be expanded. [quote]
I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
We need more airport capacity in the London area or more business will be lost to Amsterdam and other hubs. It doesn't have to be Stansted but I think it is much better than the alternatives. Think about it there is space for an additional runway and the motorway and rail links already exist although they would need to be upgraded. Also Stansted works much better than Heathrow or Gatwick for the City of London.I live near Stansted too and use the airport three or four times a year, not really sure why it ever needed expanding as its never that busy (apart from the arrivals passport control area which just seems to be understaffed and poorly laid out)
Stanstead has always been earmarked for expansion....you just need to look at the road network and the layout around the airport to see what they have in mind.
When they built the M11 in the 70's it was built as a three lane motorway to Stanstead and then reduced to two lanes to the north. That was a long time before the building of the current termial was even mooted in the public domain. Look at the improvements to the A120 east of Stanstead now.....that road is great because it's so bloody quiet. That road is clearly there with the expectation of more traffic in the future.
When they built the M11 in the 70's it was built as a three lane motorway to Stanstead and then reduced to two lanes to the north. That was a long time before the building of the current termial was even mooted in the public domain. Look at the improvements to the A120 east of Stanstead now.....that road is great because it's so bloody quiet. That road is clearly there with the expectation of more traffic in the future.
bad company said:
We need more airport capacity in the London area or more business will be lost to Amsterdam and other hubs. It doesn't have to be Stansted but I think it is much better than the alternatives. Think about it there is space for an additional runway and the motorway and rail links already exist although they would need to be upgraded. Also Stansted works much better than Heathrow or Gatwick for the City of London.
Are there studies to note business is going to Amsterdam because people cannot get flights to London?Main industry in The City is Finance. Do we believe London's preeminence in that sector is being lost to Amsterdam and "the other hubs" as a result of lack of flights? (Genuine questions, I don't know the answer but can guess).
Also, I believe the M11 (goes nowhere North especially) would need widening. And I doubt the train was spec'd with a 24hr hub in mind.
I see no point in having lots of part used airports dotted around. And less point closing perfectly good airports to focus everything on one hub.
Fill the flights more effectively at the current airports. For less well used routes, cancel them or spread that load elsewhere to take up capacity at the other airports around the country.
Cheib - where are all these additional visitors going to go to east down the A120?
Murph7355 said:
Main industry in The City is Finance. Do we believe London's preeminence in that sector is being lost to Amsterdam and "the other hubs" as a result of lack of flights? (Genuine questions, I don't know the answer but can guess).
Well finance has lost 100,000 jobs since 2007 (as compared with 20,000 in New York). But I suspect that is rather more to do with political populism, such as the bonus tax and 50p tax rate, than the lack of airport capacity.
Murph7355 said:
Are there studies to note business is going to Amsterdam because people cannot get flights to London?
Main industry in The City is Finance. Do we believe London's preeminence in that sector is being lost to Amsterdam and "the other hubs" as a result of lack of flights? (Genuine questions, I don't know the answer but can guess).
Also, I believe the M11 (goes nowhere North especially) would need widening. And I doubt the train was spec'd with a 24hr hub in mind.
I see no point in having lots of part used airports dotted around. And less point closing perfectly good airports to focus everything on one hub.
Fill the flights more effectively at the current airports. For less well used routes, cancel them or spread that load elsewhere to take up capacity at the other airports around the country.
Cheib - where are all these additional visitors going to go to east down the A120?
Read this - http://www.london.gov.uk/increasing-londons-airpor...Main industry in The City is Finance. Do we believe London's preeminence in that sector is being lost to Amsterdam and "the other hubs" as a result of lack of flights? (Genuine questions, I don't know the answer but can guess).
Also, I believe the M11 (goes nowhere North especially) would need widening. And I doubt the train was spec'd with a 24hr hub in mind.
I see no point in having lots of part used airports dotted around. And less point closing perfectly good airports to focus everything on one hub.
Fill the flights more effectively at the current airports. For less well used routes, cancel them or spread that load elsewhere to take up capacity at the other airports around the country.
Cheib - where are all these additional visitors going to go to east down the A120?
JagLover said:
Murph7355 said:
Main industry in The City is Finance. Do we believe London's preeminence in that sector is being lost to Amsterdam and "the other hubs" as a result of lack of flights? (Genuine questions, I don't know the answer but can guess).
Well finance has lost 100,000 jobs since 2007 (as compared with 20,000 in New York). But I suspect that is rather more to do with political populism, such as the bonus tax and 50p tax rate, than the lack of airport capacity.
If flights were departing half full on a continual basis then the airlines in question would not be able to continue to operate these routes efficiently and they would be withdrawn. It's a little bit too simplistic to say just withdraw the quieter routes and increase capacity that way. Large airlines do this on a daily basis and non-profitable routes do not last very long unless there is another strategic reason. I think it's better to think of it as expanding capacity to compete for aviation traffic going forward. Of course, if you believe that it is not important to compete for this traffic then I can understand why expansion would not have a high priority.
The article that was linked to above is talking more about capacity approaching 2030 and there is a very real threat that the major European airports will be much better positioned to compete for East-West transit traffic than the UK. We have a hub airport which is currently able to compete for trans-atlantic traffic in 2012, but it has been identified that it will not be able to do so in 2030. Already, I know of major overseas carriers who are looking to avoid LHR where possible due to current delays and capacity issues and that cannot be good for UK PLC in 2012, let alone in 2030.
It has been predicted by Boeing that aviation traffic will triple by 2030 and the question is do UK PLC want a piece of the pie? I honestly think that we should get on with building a 3rd runway at LHR whilst discussing how best to manage the predicted growth in aviation traffic by 2030; and while they're at it build a water pipe from Wales to the South East so that I don't have to read about hosepipe bans anymore
In terms of the high speed rail link mentioned I believe that the completion dates are between 2026 and 2033 so we are nowhere near having those. It'd definitely help me to have a West coast link to Heathrow and I'll be happier than a pig in s**t when that happens.
(of course all of this is complete b
ks when you approach it from Professor Albert Bartlett's viewpoint)bad company said:
For an impartial, well reasoned view? (I read it)Boris said:
...believes climate change, noise and environmental impacts rule out expansion at Heathrow.
The answer is a new hub airport in a better, environmentally sustainable location.
I'm kind of interested to know how the "climate change" and "environmental impacts" of a 3rd runway at Heathrow are somehow considered worse than a new "4 runway hub" built somewhere else. From a "noise" perspective I guess he just means less people to moan rather than less noise per se.The answer is a new hub airport in a better, environmentally sustainable location.
I like Boris. When I lived in London I voted for him. But sometimes the things he comes up with are a bit hard to take seriously.
So by 2030 "London's" airports are forecast to be at capacity.
Around the same time we have high speed infrastructure available to other parts of the country. Has the makings of a joined up strategy (were it done deliberately).
Boris is the Mayor of London and he quite rightly stands London's corner. But I'm not convinced that is necessarily in the best interests of the country.
I'd be (genuinely) interested to see the figures for the amount of money genuine "hub" traffic brings to the country (i.e. not people staying here, transiting through). Quite obviously it won't be zero, but is it really that significant in terms of our (or anyone's) economy?
Equally, would that same income drop to zero if we were to place said hub in the Midlands, North West or even somewhere like Norfolk (for example - i.e. shove it close to the edge of the country so that traffic goes straight out over the sea).
Or what about moving all UK commenced tourist traffic out. e.g. any flight to Benidorm, Magaluf or St Tropez, shift it to the Midlands. If we must retain all business traffic in and around London, you would then have slots opened up for that purpose.
?
Murph7355 said:
I'm kind of interested to know how the "climate change" and "environmental impacts" of a 3rd runway at Heathrow are somehow considered worse than a new "4 runway hub" built somewhere else. From a "noise" perspective I guess he just means less people to moan rather than less noise per se..............
?
I'd love to see the actual figures for the environmental impact of building a 3rd runway at LHR/new stand alone airfield. There is a lot of holding both on the ground and in the air at LHR which surely adds to its current emissions level. Would the extra resources consumed by a new runway be offset by the savings associated with less holding related fuel burn? What would be the payback period? No idea, but I'd like to know. I'm sure a reasonably in depth study could educate us all.?
I think whenever somebody is so convinced of a particular course of action in a complex situation it's because they don't fully understand the variables. I'd apply that to Boris in this case. That said, doing nothing is even worse, so I certainly back his drive to get things moving. I don't think that by 2030 the UK's airports will be at capacity, the major two in the SE are approaching that now and of course some tweaks to how they manage traffic etc can improve things, but I don't believe it will be anywhere near enough to cope with the predicted tripling of aviation traffic by 2030.
The UK is nicely situated for trans atlantic crossings and the associated transfer passengers. This is from a pro-Heathrow website, but it gives a little insight into the importance of a UK hub airport:
"Heathrow relies on transfer passengers for the viability of its hub status. To those who question what value the UK derives from a passenger who flies in from Seattle, changes planes at Heathrow, and flies out again to Bangalore, the answer is surprisingly simple: without transfer passengers, the UK would not have flights to Seattle nor Bangalore. These routes would simply not be economically viable without the high proportion of transfer passengers that support these flights. And that is true of many of other flights as well. Two-thirds of flights at Heathrow depend on 25% - 40% transfer traffic."
http://www.priorityheathrow.com/economic-benefits-...
I think that having a hub airport is important enough for British Airways to base an almost entire business model around it. The same can be said for Dubai (their economy is pretty much Emirates now
), Qatar and Etihad in Adu Dhabi who are all positioning themselves to be an East-West hub. In my opinion we are getting left behind and not just by KLM/AF and Lufthansa in Europe.With regard to placing the hub somewhere else, the sad fact is that London is the nucleus of the UK and it is where most long haul airlines fly into. Regardless of the benefits I can't see that changing anytime soon. Given the current UK infrastructure, LHR is relatively accessible for a significant proportion of the country. It is, of course, not a perfect solution. I think our hands are tied by an infrastructure that was built on the back of the Industrial Revolution trying to compete against countries who have the space and/or the financial clout to design a hub airport from scratch and, in many cases, not just one.
The Benidorm traffic doesn't use LHR at all. The charter and loco airlines who I'd associate with the bucket and spade flights already use Gatwick, Stansted, East Mids, Birmingham and Manchester. I'm not sure how much you'd gain from from moving this traffic outside of the London airlields, but I'm sure you'd upset the 1000s of people who seem to use Easyjet and Ryanair services daily from LGW and STN.
I'd agree with what you said though. It'd be great to be shown the figures so that we can educate ourselves and make a choice from an informed position. It'd be nice to know what transfer passengers bring to the UK economy and whether it's worth fighting for a slice of it. My opinion would be that it's substantial and certainly worth competing for, but I'm basing that on feel and not fact.
Edited by pushthebutton on Friday 5th October 21:19
If we had an unlimited pot of cash then a Boris island would make sense with high speed rail links to the city, stansted and Gatwick. There would be the added benefit of the pollution being blown by the prevailing winds to the continent instead of over London.
Unfortunately we have little cash available so we will waste money on more enquiries instead of building extra runways at Gatwick, stansted and heathrow and having good links between all three.
Unfortunately we have little cash available so we will waste money on more enquiries instead of building extra runways at Gatwick, stansted and heathrow and having good links between all three.
Heathrow is in completely the wrong place for expansion, hemmed in as it is by buildings on all side, with very high land values, noise issues, and god only knows what else to contend with. Compared to pretty much every airport of comparable size around the world, it's awful.
Gatwick would benefit greatly from a second runway if it could be pushed through, and a high speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick, possibly even an airside link, would make using the two airports as one a viable idea.
Stansted is a good bet because of the transport links, which mean that passengers from the north wouldn't need to come into London to get to the airport.
Boris Island would be nice if we were China. But we aren't. The important thing is to get extra capacity agreed and constructed ASAP.
Gatwick would benefit greatly from a second runway if it could be pushed through, and a high speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick, possibly even an airside link, would make using the two airports as one a viable idea.
Stansted is a good bet because of the transport links, which mean that passengers from the north wouldn't need to come into London to get to the airport.
Boris Island would be nice if we were China. But we aren't. The important thing is to get extra capacity agreed and constructed ASAP.
davepoth said:
Heathrow is in completely the wrong place for expansion, hemmed in as it is by buildings on all side, with very high land values, noise issues, and god only knows what else to contend with. Compared to pretty much every airport of comparable size around the world, it's awful.
Gatwick would benefit greatly from a second runway if it could be pushed through, and a high speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick, possibly even an airside link, would make using the two airports as one a viable idea.
Stansted is a good bet because of the transport links, which mean that passengers from the north wouldn't need to come into London to get to the airport.
Boris Island would be nice if we were China. But we aren't. The important thing is to get extra capacity agreed and constructed ASAP.
In terms of location I would say that access to a 'national' hub airport is more important than local issues such as noise and local house prices. Heathrow has the best location on this basis and a proposed 'Boris island' the worst, but I would agree that Stanstead is a close runner up to Heathrow.Gatwick would benefit greatly from a second runway if it could be pushed through, and a high speed rail link between Heathrow and Gatwick, possibly even an airside link, would make using the two airports as one a viable idea.
Stansted is a good bet because of the transport links, which mean that passengers from the north wouldn't need to come into London to get to the airport.
Boris Island would be nice if we were China. But we aren't. The important thing is to get extra capacity agreed and constructed ASAP.
In terms of Heathrow being 'hemmed in', in comparison with the £40bn build cost of Boris Island and the £30bn cost of transport infrastructure to connect it with the rest of the UK, is the cost of buying out the affected home owners around Heathrow too high?
JagLover said:
In terms of location I would say that access to a 'national' hub airport is more important than local issues such as noise and local house prices. Heathrow has the best location on this basis and a proposed 'Boris island' the worst, but I would agree that Stanstead is a close runner up to Heathrow.
In terms of Heathrow being 'hemmed in', in comparison with the £40bn build cost of Boris Island and the £30bn cost of transport infrastructure to connect it with the rest of the UK, is the cost of buying out the affected home owners around Heathrow too high?
Heathrow is in a terrible spot, nationally speaking. It's good for me because I live in Bath so I don't have to drive around the M25 to get there, but for most other people in the country it's a pain because they need to drive around the most congested part of the M25 to get there. A site north of London makes much more sense in that respect. In terms of Heathrow being 'hemmed in', in comparison with the £40bn build cost of Boris Island and the £30bn cost of transport infrastructure to connect it with the rest of the UK, is the cost of buying out the affected home owners around Heathrow too high?
The third runway will probably be somewhere around £20bn in today's money; so a bit cheaper. But it will probably take longer because of all of the issues of building in such a congested space. As I pointed out, Boris Island would be nice if we were China, but we're not. Expanding Gatwick or Stansted, where relatively few people live and land is much cheaper is a more sensible option IMO - most of the transport infrastructure is already in place for both airports already.
Gassing Station | News, Politics & Economics | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff