Airports Commission Interim Report

[LNW-GW Joint]

From a railway point of view, this is rather disappointing. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...266446/airports-commission-interim-report.pdf
The runway options are either at Heathrow or Gatwick, so the ground transport options concentrate on those.
Hence we have essentially a new station at Gatwick, plus better dedicated Gatwick Express stock (turning the clock back).
Doing something about the "East Croydon bottleneck" is mentioned.

Heathrow just mentions new "access from the south", which supposedly means some version of the Airtrack scheme.
Nothing much is said about an HS2 link, or western access, which you would think was vital to Heathrow's health whichever solution is chosen.

The only ambitious statement is that the Liverpool St-Stansted line should be 4-tracked as far as Broxbourne to improve frequency and journey time.
It's not my area but I can't imagine NR and DfT have given this much attention.

Northern Hub is supported in respect of Manchester Airport, but it simply says "do it in full".
Oh and they want paperless ticketing for all airport journeys.

Maybe at this interim stage they have not had much time to think much about rail links, the air issues being so intractable and controversial.
It is to be hoped that the final report in 2015 will give rail proper attention.
Just think, we might then have a public revolt about Heathrow expansion running simultaneously with that for HS2...:cry:

5.89 Stansted:
●● The Government should work with Network Rail and Transport for London on a
detailed study of the route between London and Stansted Airport and serious
consideration should be given to 4-tracking the line as far as Broxbourne
Junction, subject to a robust business case being developed. This study should
consider how enhancements to the route might benefit airport traffic, London
commuters and Cambridge traffic, recognising that any steps to enhance the
Stansted Express service through regularising or reducing journey times and
improving reliability will help the airport to play an enhanced role in supporting
London and the UK’s international connectivity. The study should take full
account of the Mayor’s London Growth Strategy.

5.89 Gatwick:
The Government and Network Rail should accelerate work to produce a detailed plan for the enhancement of the Brighton Main Line, with a particular emphasis upon enhancing capacity and reliability, so as to accommodate growth in both airport and commuter traffic. This could focus on the alleviation of particular pinch points (such as East Croydon).

5.129 Accordingly, a number of surface transport proposals were identified for further
examination alongside the relevant long-term options ahead of the Commission’s
final report. They include:
●● construction of new high speed rail lines or spurs from current or planned high
speed rail lines, such as the HS2 spur to Heathrow;
●● construction of new rail lines (as opposed to the enhancement of lines that form
part of the existing network); and,
●● significant changes to current infrastructure or service patterns which cannot be
justified on the basis of existing airport traffic levels.

 

[MidlandMainlie]

Interesting article on the BBC Website about the politics of airport expansion, by James Landsdale.

Why airport expansion will be election issue

Oh dear. It was not supposed to be like this. Both Conservative and Labour politicians had hoped that the controversial question of expanding airport capacity in the south of England had been delayed until after the election. That is why the Airports Commission was asked to report after May 2015.

The Conservatives, in particular, had hoped to go to the polls with a constructively ambiguous manifesto saying they supported the commission but would not prejudge its conclusions.

But Sir Howard Davies' interim report leans so far towards expanding London Heathrow that it will make harder for the parties to maintain their collective omerta for the next 18 months. This is why:

1. Opponents of Heathrow expansion, whether Boris Johnson, Zac Goldsmith or other residents on the ground, will be more vocal now they have a target. They will not let this matter rest. One local Labour MP, John McDonnell, talks of the "biggest, greenest, direct action campaign ever". Mr Goldsmith threatens by-elections. Opponents believe that expanding Heathrow is politically impossible and will do their utmost to make that case. In the face of such an onslaught, it will be hard for the party leaderships to stay silent.

2. Some in Labour will feel tempted to come out in favour of Heathrow expansion to display their pro-growth credentials at a time when the party is searching for economic credibility. The fact that this approach might also discomfit and divide the Tories would be a Brucey bonus. Ed Miliband is still said to be "sceptical" about Heathrow expansion but that is often said by Labour insiders with a knowing smile, and publicly frontbenchers talk of trusting the Davies commission and its work.

3. Some Conservative ministers might want to cut their losses and express their private support for Heathrow expansion publicly. Can the Tories, they argue, really go into the next election as the pro-growth party without saying what they would do on one of the biggest long term investment issues this country faces? George Osborne, we are told, is much more supportive of Heathrow expansion than he once was. And, these ministers point out, if you want to drive airport expansion through, it would be better to have put it to the electorate first so you can claim some kind of mandate when the going gets rough.

4. Other Conservatives argue that the party effectively carried out its U-turn on Heathrow when it set up the Davies commission without repeating their manifesto commitment to rule out a third runway. And if you have sold the pass, they argue, if you are facing accusations of betrayal, you might as well be upfront and make the case. They say that either way, by supporting the Davies process, the Tories will have to go into the election with a manifesto that no longer rules out Heathrow expansion. So why not take the hit now rather than closer to the next election?

As for Boris Johnson, his favoured solution of a hub in the Thames estuary east of London lives to fight another day - just. As he said, it is "not dead yet". So the potential for all out war between the London mayor and the Conservative Party is put on hold until next year. Mr Johnson can now spend the next few months making the case for east London rather than opposing Heathrow. But Sir Howard Davies says he will decide finally on whether the east London option will make it onto the formal shortlist next year. And if he rules against it, then the potential for fireworks between City Hall and Downing Street is huge.

So today both the Tories and Labour will welcome Sir Howard Davies' interim conclusions but they will be carefully non-committal about what they plan to do. The question now is how long that position remains tenable.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25414128

Could make the opposition to HS2 from some Tory Backbenchers look like a storm in a teacup if Borris wades in before 2015.

 

[dk1]

I seem to recall that an early plan for Stansted was to have St.Pancras as the London terminal. Obviously light years before the current & superb use of this ex-Midland station was dreamed of.

 

[ClevedonYellow]

I think that putting the Stansted Express into St Pancras would be a bad Idea as each London airport is from a different London Terminus. I think a proposal that wasn't thought about is a branch of Cross-rail to Stansted from Stratford / Liverpool St. I would be a excellent link between Heathrow and Stansted connecting With Luton and Gatwick Via Thameslink at Farringdon.

 

[gordonthemoron]

and what fuel will these extra planes use?

 

[Carlisle]

and what fuel will these extra planes use?

I would guess significantly less than the ones of yesteryear with most new planes being twin engined rather than the four of older ones

 

[starrymarkb]

I believe a the 787 drinks about 15% less fuel per flight then the smaller 767 it replaces, similarly the A350 has a similar frugalness compared with the A330 (and especially the quad engined A340).

 

[pablo]

Remember the Club of Rome? We've been listening to dire predictions for fifty years. Ignore them.

 

[Tetchytyke]

Nobody ever seems to mention that nearly 30% of all passenger traffic at Heathrow involves passengers transferring between two international flights, not actually stepping foot on UK soil.

I'm not one for Malthusian ideas that we will "run out" of resources, but there is a similar issue with the modelling at Heathrow. It assumes the increase in air travel will continue at the rate it is doing now, which is clearly nonsense.

 

[L&Y Robert]

I'm not one for Malthusian ideas that we will "run out" of resources, but there is a similar issue with the modelling at Heathrow. It assumes the increase in air travel will continue at the rate it is doing now, which is clearly nonsense.

I remember a similar response to forecasts we made in the 70s (Town and Country Planning Officer) about the increase in car ownership, the growth in road traffic, and the inadequacy of the urban street pattern to cope. "Clearly nonsense" they said, "The future is motorways". Well it wasn't, and it isn't.

 

[gordonthemoron]

There's this article in today's Standard about the preferred option for Heathrow involving closing part of M25 for up to 5 years !!! Absolutely bonkers

 

[Butts]

I would guess significantly less than the ones of yesteryear with most new planes being twin engined rather than the four of older ones

Air is the future for long haul domestic journeys - why anyone would take a train when a plane is available never ceases to amaze me

It's often cheaper, far quicker and more comfortable - and an amazing concept - you always get a seat !!

 

[Rational Plan]

There's this article in today's Standard about the preferred option for Heathrow involving closing part of M25 for up to 5 years !!! Absolutely bonkers

Then it's a rubbish article. They would never close it. It would need to be rebuilt and rerouted, but that is not the same thing!
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

From a railway point of view, this is rather disappointing. https://www.gov.uk/government/uploa...266446/airports-commission-interim-report.pdf
The runway options are either at Heathrow or Gatwick, so the ground transport options concentrate on those.
Hence we have essentially a new station at Gatwick, plus better dedicated Gatwick Express stock (turning the clock back).
Doing something about the "East Croydon bottleneck" is mentioned.

Heathrow just mentions new "access from the south", which supposedly means some version of the Airtrack scheme.
Nothing much is said about an HS2 link, or western access, which you would think was vital to Heathrow's health whichever solution is chosen.

The only ambitious statement is that the Liverpool St-Stansted line should be 4-tracked as far as Broxbourne to improve frequency and journey time.
It's not my area but I can't imagine NR and DfT have given this much attention.

Northern Hub is supported in respect of Manchester Airport, but it simply says "do it in full".
Oh and they want paperless ticketing for all airport journeys.

Maybe at this interim stage they have not had much time to think much about rail links, the air issues being so intractable and controversial.
It is to be hoped that the final report in 2015 will give rail proper attention.
Just think, we might then have a public revolt about Heathrow expansion running simultaneously with that for HS2...:cry:

As the government has already agreed to fund the Western link to the Great Western, the only other option would be a southern link.

 

[Carlisle]

I remember a similar response to forecasts we made in the 70s (Town and Country Planning Officer) about the increase in car ownership, the growth in road traffic, and the inadequacy of the urban street pattern to cope. "Clearly nonsense" they said, "The future is motorways". Well it wasn't, and it isn't.

Yes that's why when I drove along the M6 the other day through Birmingham they are converting the hard shoulder for use at busy times and you also have the M6 toll and m25 widening ,all clearly cos no ones using motorways these days

 

[alwaystouchout]

I always thought, naively, that western access to Heathrow would simply be a case of making the existing the spur accessible from both directions on the GWML, not a new line from Slough..

Another one for the Swampies of Berkshire to mull.

 

[gordonthemoron]

Surely Boris Island is akin to HS2 whereas adding extra runways to Heathrow is the same bodge as 'upgrading' WCML?

 

[edwin_m]

Yes that's why when I drove along the M6 the other day through Birmingham they are converting the hard shoulder for use at busy times and you also have the M6 toll and m25 widening ,all clearly cos no ones using motorways these days

It's not that nobody is using them, it's that building more is just going to create more traffic until they are just as congested as the existing ones - and in the meantime public transport is less viable because fewer people are using it. Some of the recent and current motorway projects may do this as well.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Surely Boris Island is akin to HS2 whereas adding extra runways to Heathrow is the same bodge as 'upgrading' WCML?

I don't think it's quite the same because the new runway can be built outside the boundary of the airport's operational area without disrupting existing operations, and then the fences taken out when it is complete. Probably less disruptive than resurfacing the existing runways or rebuilding the terminal buildings (the latter seemingly a continuous process at every airport anywhere...).

 

[HSTEd]

The optimum solution in the long run is probably to build a huge six runway airport in the Thames Estuary (The 'London Britannia' proposal) and then close every single other significant airport in South East England.

Collapsing as many services as possible into the same airport allows two small planes to be replaced with one larger plane or allows effective service frequency to increase or even allows more destinations to be supported since more slots are available.


But I can see why people would balk at such a thing in the face of the seemingly large pricetag and opposition from corporate interests involved in the running of the other airports.

 

[alwaystouchout]

The optimum solution in the long run is probably to build a huge six runway airport in the Thames Estuary (The 'London Britannia' proposal) and then close every single other significant airport in South East England.

Collapsing as many services as possible into the same airport allows two small planes to be replaced with one larger plane or allows effective service frequency to increase or even allows more destinations to be supported since more slots are available.


But I can see why people would balk at such a thing in the face of the seemingly large pricetag and opposition from corporate interests involved in the running of the other airports.

The economies of scale argument is a convincing one, but I just can't see how it could ever, ever be justified, politically and economically, which is obviously the major obstacle to any airport capacity expansion whatever solutions are pipped for.

For me I just can't accept that after all the furore over Heathrow T5, the brand new T2 under construction and no doubt more revamps, all the investment that's gone and going into it, and all the jobs that depend on it, they can simply pull the plug and relocate to a brand new airport in the Estuary. Don't get me wrong I've heard people say Heathrow was a post-war mistake, but in purely practical terms expansion has to be the only viable solution.

Also it's funny how news crews always go to Kingston, Richmond or Windsor to talk to residents about falling property values and 'being green,' rather than to Hounslow or Feltham to talk about the employment opportunities that Heathrow expansion would bring..In times of economic distress we all can't afford to have that broader, postmaterialist view of the world.

Of course what people want isn't always what people need..

 

[HSTEd]

I would argue that the loss of jobs and economic output in West London as a result of the loss of Heathrow would be balanced out by a comparable growth in East London, with many staff likely relocating to the East End, Kent and Essex.
Whilst this is not necessarily a good thing for the specific areas of the Western end of London, the net effect on the economy of the South East is likely to be rather minor.

As to the amount of resources sunk into Heathrow, it would likely be ten years or more from a decision to proceed being taken for the new airport to open, which would mean that even today's modifications would hardly be brand new.

Building any more airport capacity at an in land location seems even less viable politically than the Estuary airport option, people really don't like huge amounts of noise.

 

[fowler9]

The optimum solution in the long run is probably to build a huge six runway airport in the Thames Estuary (The 'London Britannia' proposal) and then close every single other significant airport in South East England.

Collapsing as many services as possible into the same airport allows two small planes to be replaced with one larger plane or allows effective service frequency to increase or even allows more destinations to be supported since more slots are available.


But I can see why people would balk at such a thing in the face of the seemingly large pricetag and opposition from corporate interests involved in the running of the other airports.

Airlines don't seem to want to replace 2 smaller aircraft with one larger one. Look at the A380, as amazing as it is it really isn't selling well apart from to Emirates who are something else entirely.

Also building an airport in the Thames Estuary just makes it even harder to get to for most of the country, not to mention that ship that is sunk in the area full of WW2 munitions.

 

[gordonthemoron]

well the 37% of passengers who are in transit probably couldn't care if the airport was at Heathrow or the Thames estuary. If Heathrow is a 'Hub' airport, that is the market it is aiming at

 

[HSTEd]

Airlines don't seem to want to replace 2 smaller aircraft with one larger one. Look at the A380, as amazing as it is it really isn't selling well apart from to Emirates who are something else entirely.

While the A380 is the ultimate destination of such consolidations, it is true that most routes have not yet reached that level of saturation.
Many routes would involve trading up from things like the A320 to the medium scale airliners like the A330 or A350. (Remember that I am not just talking about replacing Heathrow and Gatwick here, I am including Stansted and Luton and the other minor holiday-maker airports)

Also building an airport in the Thames Estuary just makes it even harder to get to for most of the country, not to mention that ship that is sunk in the area full of WW2 munitions.

Transport concerns in a country as compact as the UK are fairly minor, even with the current lack of a dedicated motorway to the airport's location from the M25 the journey times out to the right distance are something like 90 minutes at most from Heathrow (so the worst case scenario of someone approaching along the M4) which is hardly catastrophic.
Construction of a proper approach motorway would reduce this time further.

Public transport problems can be ameliorated by an extension from Crossrail from Abbey wood or the other surface connections that would be constructed as part of the construction of the airport.

 

[fowler9]

While the A380 is the ultimate destination of such consolidations, it is true that most routes have not yet reached that level of saturation.
Many routes would involve trading up from things like the A320 to the medium scale airliners like the A330 or A350. (Remember that I am not just talking about replacing Heathrow and Gatwick here, I am including Stansted and Luton and the other minor holiday-maker airports)



Transport concerns in a country as compact as the UK are fairly minor, even with the current lack of a dedicated motorway to the airport's location from the M25 the journey times out to the right distance are something like 90 minutes at most from Heathrow (so the worst case scenario of someone approaching along the M4) which is hardly catastrophic.
Construction of a proper approach motorway would reduce this time further.

Public transport problems can be ameliorated by an extension from Crossrail from Abbey wood or the other surface connections that would be constructed as part of the construction of the airport.

To be honest I can't see Easyjet or Ryanair and the like trading up to 787's and A350's and reducing frequencies any time soon. Alright Norwegian have got a couple of 787's but they use them on long haul flights. A lot of American operators normally use 767's on transatlantic flights rather than use larger aircraft as they prefer having more frequent services.

If a large airport is built in the Thames Estuary it may not be much further but would it not mean a longer journey right through the centre of London on public transport for a lot more people?

 

[RichmondCommu]

Also it's funny how news crews always go to Kingston, Richmond or Windsor to talk to residents about falling property values and 'being green,' rather than to Hounslow or Feltham to talk about the employment opportunities that Heathrow expansion would bring..In times of economic distress we all can't afford to have that broader, postmaterialist view of the world.

Of course what people want isn't always what people need..

As a resident of Richmond the constant flights don't bother me. However as someone who uses Heathrow on a regular basis the increase in capacity would be very welcome rather than land mark spotting whilst waiting for a slot.

 

[Bald Rick]

On a very personal note, I would need an awful lot of convincing* that my current 30 min door to door for LHR T5 and 20 min door to door for LTN would be 'improved' by traipsing to an airport halfway to Holland, even if it was served by a high speed rail service that stopped at my local station (which it wouldn't be). Local airports in the south east will always have a place and serve a market.

* convincing = "made significantly cheaper"

 

[HSTEd]

On a very personal note, I would need an awful lot of convincing* that my current 30 min door to door for LHR T5 and 20 min door to door for LTN would be 'improved' by traipsing to an airport halfway to Holland, even if it was served by a high speed rail service that stopped at my local station (which it wouldn't be). Local airports in the south east will always have a place and serve a market.

* convincing = "made significantly cheaper"

The loss of amenity and health issues caused by the constant and massive noise and air pollution over heavily populated areas in the South East of England have a nonzero and likely very significant cash value.
It is not unreasonable for these airports to have to pay for the damage they do (indeed it is what many people seem to advocate in connection with other issues) which could easily price Heathrow/Gatwick and many of th eminor airports out of existance.
If they are forced to makae reasonable contributions to the maintenance of shared infrastructure to an extent mandated by the actual cost of providing it, that would reduce their competitiveness further.

Heathrow is not an efficient location for a n airport, it is already unable to use its runways in the most efficient manner due to the restrictions on its operations to keep the noise pollution under control.

More than a third of the traffic will not leave the airport, with a rather large fraction of the remainder will be traffic from London, the nmber of people coming from a great distance away is relatively minor and many come from directions where the journey will not be increased in length by a great degree.

 

[fowler9]

The loss of amenity and health issues caused by the constant and massive noise and air pollution over heavily populated areas in the South East of England have a nonzero and likely very significant cash value.
It is not unreasonable for these airports to have to pay for the damage they do (indeed it is what many people seem to advocate in connection with other issues) which could easily price Heathrow/Gatwick and many of th eminor airports out of existance.
If they are forced to makae reasonable contributions to the maintenance of shared infrastructure to an extent mandated by the actual cost of providing it, that would reduce their competitiveness further.

Heathrow is not an efficient location for a n airport, it is already unable to use its runways in the most efficient manner due to the restrictions on its operations to keep the noise pollution under control.

More than a third of the traffic will not leave the airport, with a rather large fraction of the remainder will be traffic from London, the nmber of people coming from a great distance away is relatively minor and many come from directions where the journey will not be increased in length by a great degree.

You have said a couple of times now that it won't increase peoples journeys by much but have a look at the shape of the country on a map. If you move the airport to the Thames Estuary almost everyone in the country will be travelling further.

There is an airport just down the road from me in Manchester which already has spare capacity and take any size of plane. Instead of improving commerce in the north by building a new airport (Or expanding Heathrow) and then building HS2 why not save money by flying people directly to the north in the first place?

 

[Bald Rick]

Personally (again) I would be delighted if LHR and LTN paid me the cash value of the loss of amenity and health issues I have from living under the departure flight paths of both. But it wouldn't be very much. Indeed I quite enjoy seeing big planes ex LHR going over at 5000 feet and opening the taps to start main ascent.

Admittedly it wouldn't be the same if I lived in Hounslow.

It is just not tenable to expect a populated area the size and density of London and the home counties to be served by one airport. So regardless of whether a new hub airport is built in the Thames estuary - or indeed anywhere else - the more local airports will still be needed, and welcomed by the majority of their local communities.

 

[HSTEd]

You have said a couple of times now that it won't increase peoples journeys by much but have a look at the shape of the country on a map.

Yes, now correct the shape of the country to account for population density.
Now find me a location close to the centre of population that won't blight huge urban areas or areas that could easily be urbanised within fifty years.

There is an airport just down the road from me in Manchester which already has spare capacity and take any size of plane. Instead of improving commerce in the north by building a new airport (Or expanding Heathrow) and then building HS2 why not save money by flying people directly to the north in the first place?

Because, despite what various fantasists like to think, people don't want to fly to the North.
London's economic 'economies of scale' are so large that no concievable scenario can prevent it coming to increasingly dominate the entire British economy.
Attempting to fight thhis is an expensive exercise in futility
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

It is just not tenable to expect a populated area the size and density of London and the home counties to be served by one airport. So regardless of whether a new hub airport is built in the Thames estuary - or indeed anywhere else - the more local airports will still be needed, and welcomed by the majority of their local communities.

Why not?
Airports that could handle the entire passenger counts of all the significant London airports could concievably exist.
Heathrow and Gatwick add up to about 110m passengers, whereas Hartfield-Jackson airport in Atlanta has close to a hundred million by itself and is still getting larger.

As to Ground Access, the total passenger access count for even such a titanic airport would be within the capability of a Crossrail standard metro line, let alone the concentration of resources that could be brought to bear if all the money used to maintain grouund access to all the significant airports in SE England was freed up.