This may sound a little weird but there may be a silver lining from the current global crisis. And this one is very obtuse but bear with me.
It is about the intersection of Gordon Brown's popularity and the need for expanded capacity at London's Airports.
So the UK process for airport infrastructure expansion is shall we say very complicated and extremely long winded. So it comes as a great surprise that the UK is rushing through 2 major projects. The second runway at Stansted and the contentious third runway at LHR.
Determined to thwart the attempts of the Tories who only weeks ago were this close to securing the downfall of the dour Scotsman who currently occupies Number 10 Downing Street, the current Labour Government has pushed through the processes to get the public inquiries out the way.
In the case of Stansted they are going to great lengths to rush this through. Even to the extent of holding hearings in different rooms to shorten the time by 50%. For LHR the public comment and inquiry process was not expected to start until 2010. Now we hear that they are going to shortly start the public process with Gordon promising to rubber stamp it within weeks of the conclusion. Much to the chagrin of many unions, the mayor of London (Tory Boris) and many many in his own party.
Never say there isn't a silver lining in everything.
Cheers
Showing posts with label Stansted. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Stansted. Show all posts
03 November 2008
22 September 2008
Could This Be Boris' White Elephant ? I Hope Not.
In the 1960s and 1970s there were many conversations about developing a so called London's 3rd Airport. Ultimately Stansted was developed at a time when in fact there were 3 already (they kinda forgot about Luton). The controversy over developing LHR (a 3rd Runway) or LGW (a second Runway) has raged long and hard. In reality it will probably be another 10 years or so before we get any form of change.
The proposal for LHR's 3rd runway has been floated for many years but recently received some added attention. Now of course it may be too late. Demolishing homes is not a politically smart thing to do. Even if a 3rd runway is added - the layout of LHR would be hard pressed to deal with a true 50% increase in traffic potential. What to do?
Boris Johnson, the erudite new Mayor of London, wants to look at a different alternative altogether. His idea is to revive the Maplin Sands/Foulness idea. In 1969 the then Wilson government proposed several sites but only one was a coastal site. I remember well the protest from the local people where my family lived to make sure it didn't come to Nuthampsted. The Roskill Commission was charged with evaluating it. Voila end result was Stansted started its development 20 years later.
Boris wants to build a 4 runways on the water where it is only 10 feet deep with landfill, expanding it to 6 runways if necessary later. His idea merits a lot of attention.
Let's start with the fact there is no good answer to the problem. London needs an decent airport. The current "third world" edifice that is LHR is a disgrace and just plain bad in terms of how an airport should be. The impact of the environment is actually worse keeping it. The lack of planning by successive UK Governments has now come back to haunt the current administration (if Gordon Brown survives). A Conservative Majority at the next election could easily be given a mandate for change. This is one of those key changes that is required.
So there is no point in arguing about it. Developing the site and delivering it would take about 6 years AFTER final approval. Since in the UK that will take at LEAST 4 years - I believe that this should start now and in earnest.
The economic and environmental benefits far outweigh all the negatives. Imagine if you will an airport powered in a large part by low cost wave energy in a location that reduces its environmental impact. The Southeast of England would have new land available for development on the old LHR site. it would open up a corridor to the east of London and benefit the country as a whole.
And your problem with this is what?
The proposal for LHR's 3rd runway has been floated for many years but recently received some added attention. Now of course it may be too late. Demolishing homes is not a politically smart thing to do. Even if a 3rd runway is added - the layout of LHR would be hard pressed to deal with a true 50% increase in traffic potential. What to do?
Boris Johnson, the erudite new Mayor of London, wants to look at a different alternative altogether. His idea is to revive the Maplin Sands/Foulness idea. In 1969 the then Wilson government proposed several sites but only one was a coastal site. I remember well the protest from the local people where my family lived to make sure it didn't come to Nuthampsted. The Roskill Commission was charged with evaluating it. Voila end result was Stansted started its development 20 years later.
Boris wants to build a 4 runways on the water where it is only 10 feet deep with landfill, expanding it to 6 runways if necessary later. His idea merits a lot of attention.
Let's start with the fact there is no good answer to the problem. London needs an decent airport. The current "third world" edifice that is LHR is a disgrace and just plain bad in terms of how an airport should be. The impact of the environment is actually worse keeping it. The lack of planning by successive UK Governments has now come back to haunt the current administration (if Gordon Brown survives). A Conservative Majority at the next election could easily be given a mandate for change. This is one of those key changes that is required.
So there is no point in arguing about it. Developing the site and delivering it would take about 6 years AFTER final approval. Since in the UK that will take at LEAST 4 years - I believe that this should start now and in earnest.
The economic and environmental benefits far outweigh all the negatives. Imagine if you will an airport powered in a large part by low cost wave energy in a location that reduces its environmental impact. The Southeast of England would have new land available for development on the old LHR site. it would open up a corridor to the east of London and benefit the country as a whole.
And your problem with this is what?
20 May 2008
The extent of the problem at T5 shows in the numbers
Traffic figures for the month of April show the impact of the debacle at T5. We knew from anecdotal reports that it was bad and that customers were running away from BA (yes I was one and moved at least one flight away from BA. Now the numbers are in.
LHR was down altogether for the month off by -3.8%. Latest report shows BA passengers down by -7.9% Since BA drives around 50% of the traffic at LHR this is about right. OUCH!!!!
But the UK was off all over the place. Mancheter, Gatwick, Stansted etc etc. Interestingly enough - Ryanair who is STN's largest single airline had an increase of 15% for the month of April indicating they are doing a good job of diversifying the revenue base. Just following on the Southwest model.
Cheers
T
LHR was down altogether for the month off by -3.8%. Latest report shows BA passengers down by -7.9% Since BA drives around 50% of the traffic at LHR this is about right. OUCH!!!!
But the UK was off all over the place. Mancheter, Gatwick, Stansted etc etc. Interestingly enough - Ryanair who is STN's largest single airline had an increase of 15% for the month of April indicating they are doing a good job of diversifying the revenue base. Just following on the Southwest model.
Cheers
T
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)